Since the enactment of Japan's constitution in 1947, it has never been amended even though desires for constitutional change within the country has been present ever since the constitution was enacted.
Japan's constitution birthed from the Potsdam Declaration signed by the United States, the United Kingdom and China. The declaration, in simple words, requires Japan to surrender. It outlines the terms and condition by the Allied powers of the surrender of Japan. If Japan does not abide by the declaration, it would cost them "prompt and utter destruction". Japan, at first, ignored the declaration but eventually accepted it when Japan experienced the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and also because the Soviet Union already joined the war. Japan was defeated and became under the Allied Occupation headed by the United States. The allied powers did not directly gave Japan their own constitution and even encouraged Japan to make their own democratic reforms. However, McArthur rejected a first draft of a constitution created by the Japanese and ordered his staff to write a new draft. Although written by non-Japanese, the writers of the draft considered the Meiji constitution and other significant sectors of Japan.
The first attempts for revision was driven by the desires to make the constitution more "Japanese" however there has been many difficulties particularly in the amendment process. Amending the constitution should be approved by 2/3 of both houses of the National Diet. There is also the great numbers of opposition and even for the LDP the constitution was to their advantage.
On the pro-constitutional changes side, revisions means that Japan will be able to contribute more to the world and be assertive. Some say that it is time that Japan lets go of the "embarrassment" that whenever they are opposed by forces they have to call to other countries for help. Revision would not mean that Japan will go berserk again and go on occupying countries such as China again but revision would be a chance for Japan to help lessen and prevent international crisis such as Terrorism. It would also make the SDF or Japan's Self-Defense Force feel that the people will trust them and they belong to the people because they will have the chance to really protect them in any form of coercion against Japan.
For those who are against the constitutional change, Revision would mean that Japan will completely lose its independence. America share the same interest of constitutional change and if so, it will just make way to a new "pax American way". Following the present and peaceful constitution is idealistic and realistic. Another reason given for being against the change is that Japan has already been demilitarized as military budget declines every year so if revision would be made, another concern would be the financing of the Military.
Debates regarding the constitutional change still goes on up to date and as long as the real intentions of the revision is not identified people will have doubts and different perspective s regarding the issue. In my point of view, what Japan needs to do is evaluate and assess what is good for the whole country and be cautious of external forces that may influence them and be of hindrance in making the right decision.
Japan's constitution birthed from the Potsdam Declaration signed by the United States, the United Kingdom and China. The declaration, in simple words, requires Japan to surrender. It outlines the terms and condition by the Allied powers of the surrender of Japan. If Japan does not abide by the declaration, it would cost them "prompt and utter destruction". Japan, at first, ignored the declaration but eventually accepted it when Japan experienced the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and also because the Soviet Union already joined the war. Japan was defeated and became under the Allied Occupation headed by the United States. The allied powers did not directly gave Japan their own constitution and even encouraged Japan to make their own democratic reforms. However, McArthur rejected a first draft of a constitution created by the Japanese and ordered his staff to write a new draft. Although written by non-Japanese, the writers of the draft considered the Meiji constitution and other significant sectors of Japan.
The first attempts for revision was driven by the desires to make the constitution more "Japanese" however there has been many difficulties particularly in the amendment process. Amending the constitution should be approved by 2/3 of both houses of the National Diet. There is also the great numbers of opposition and even for the LDP the constitution was to their advantage.
On the pro-constitutional changes side, revisions means that Japan will be able to contribute more to the world and be assertive. Some say that it is time that Japan lets go of the "embarrassment" that whenever they are opposed by forces they have to call to other countries for help. Revision would not mean that Japan will go berserk again and go on occupying countries such as China again but revision would be a chance for Japan to help lessen and prevent international crisis such as Terrorism. It would also make the SDF or Japan's Self-Defense Force feel that the people will trust them and they belong to the people because they will have the chance to really protect them in any form of coercion against Japan.
For those who are against the constitutional change, Revision would mean that Japan will completely lose its independence. America share the same interest of constitutional change and if so, it will just make way to a new "pax American way". Following the present and peaceful constitution is idealistic and realistic. Another reason given for being against the change is that Japan has already been demilitarized as military budget declines every year so if revision would be made, another concern would be the financing of the Military.
Debates regarding the constitutional change still goes on up to date and as long as the real intentions of the revision is not identified people will have doubts and different perspective s regarding the issue. In my point of view, what Japan needs to do is evaluate and assess what is good for the whole country and be cautious of external forces that may influence them and be of hindrance in making the right decision.
