Taishō “Democracy”

The prospect of democracy in Japan was rekindled in what was known as Taishō “Democracy”, a contentious fact that is complex and difficult to rationalize. In the parochial sense, Taishō democracy coincided with the reign of Emperor Yoshihito which began in 1912 and lasted until 1926. Some scholars, for example Takayoshi (1966) asserts that the causes of the fluctuations of the spirit of democracy could be extended, going further back to 1905 and up to 1932 . In the 1920s, Japan moved towards democratic developments, yet in the 1930s democracy seems to halt and militaristic aspects emerged. The views presented in this essay will have a Western impact and Japanese response as well as Japan-centered approaches as proposed by Cohen (2003) in terms of political, economic, military, social and psychological dynamics . These dynamics will then be correlated as to why Taishō trend towards democracy failed to last.

To begin with, the political dynamic as pointed by Duus (1976) during the Taishō era created a power vacuum known as “Taishō political change” which accelerated the failure of democracy . The ruling group called Jushin that replaced the Meiji oligarchs as statesmen by the end of the 1st World War created turmoil of political struggles. Besides that, the death of the Meiji Emperor in 1912 meant a disappearance figure of democratic rule . The monarch was incapable of participating in the direction of his father, and in 1921 he had to relinquish even his ceremonial roles to his son, Hirohito. In addition, Taishō health prompted the shift of political power from a centralized rule to the Diet of Japan and the party system. These democratic apparatus proved to be handy mechanisms for the balancing of political power. Bureaucrats and military officers became the main heirs of the Genrō, but lacking the unchallenged authority of the predecessors thus they found it is necessary to seek support through political coalition of the Diet. Business cliques known by the pejorative name of zaibatsu, found the Diet a convenient bargaining ground with the bureaucracy, while the parties were for them an effective tool for winning political power through the judicious use of financial aid. Furthermore, important oligarchs such as Itō Hirobumi, who drafted the constitution and 4 times premier has been assassinated by a Korean in 1909. Yamagata Aritomo, known as the Father of the Army and twice premier died in 1922 . In 1924, only one of the Meiji oligarch remained, Saionji Kimmochi, a court noble and least typical member of the oligarchs . Nepotism, favourism and corruption could be rampant amidst such struggle. It must be understood that no one group that replaced the oligarchs had the prestige or power, and on the whole they lacked the common background and singleness of purpose in promoting and establishing democracy.

Another basic flaw of the Japanese political system could be traced back to the Meiji period whereby it was deliberately factionalize and was carefully preserved by the ruling groups of the 1920s until it contributed to their demise in the 1930s. In addition, the divine supremacy of the emperor was exploited which took precedence over all laws, which hasten the end of democracy. It was the Meiji oligarchs who came into power championing the right of emperor to rule fostered this archaic tradition. This in turn gave the men who surrounded the emperor outstanding authority over the people than they could have achieved otherwise. Most of whom who manipulate this right were the pro-nationalists and conservative militarist whom later contributed greatly to the pro-war politics. Shinto as a state religion further centralizes the power of the emperor and his imperial lineage. Japanese was practically indoctrinated with fanatical devotion to the emperor and even extended as a blind submission in all statements which secured the emperor the unquestioning loyalty and obedience of the people. These three nativist systems which were implemented by the oligarchs consequently permitted a radical sort of expression by members of the obsessed emperor-centric concept as they were crouched in terms of devotion to the emperor . I believe that these systems proved to be a contributing factor that stifled the growth of democracy as whoever challenged the validity of the emperor will be forcefully and callously suppressed.

After the 1st World War, post-war ferment such as the Rice Riots in 1918 and 2388 labor disputes in 1919 reflected an unprecedented social and intellectual upheaval. These created a rift between the city and country side which complicate Japan in the 20th Century. As stated by Sims (1991), the year 1925 in which universal male suffrage was passed through the General Election law, the Diet too passed a Peace Preservation law . Collectively, the law was designed to suppress political dissent. I interprets this as against democratic decree as it limits the rights of free speech and political actions. The government instilled a fear mongering technique to stamp out “dangerous thought” especially against communism which was justified in the attempt assassination of Hirohito during the Toranomon incident in 1923. The great Kanto Earthquake further escalated the unhappiness of the Japanese towards the government in rendering help. According to Totten (1965), by 1926 Japan Communist party had been forced underground, by 1929 the party leadership had been virtually destroyed and by 1933 the party had largely disintegrated . Hence, the fear of Communism was just a motive to invoke political terror. I personally elucidated this act was using the vague and subjective concept of kokutai in attempting to blend politics and ethnics, but the result was not encouraging as any political opposition or ideology could be branded as “altering the kokutai.” Special police called the Shokko was established as a thought-controlled police to investigate political groups that might threaten Emperor-centered social order . A weak emperor at the apex indicates that the government could carte blanche to outlaw any form of dissent towards the authority in general and the emperor in particular. Although, Japan did advocated imperial democracy called minpon shugi and rejecting Western democracy minshu shugi as suggested by Sakuzo Yoshino, Japanese nationalism grew and questions arose whether the kokutai emperor should be limited with democratic rule .

Parliamentary leaders made a blunder by failing to see that the reactionary pro-nationalists and conservative militarists presented the most immediate threat to their continued democratic rule. These groups turned the table on the civil government by claiming that they not the government represented the true imperial “voice”. The claim in the case of the army had certain validity as they are appointees of the emperor, enjoying a status of above and beyond the civil government and therefore equally qualified to speak for him. These groups practically profited from this break from the authority and abused tacit army approval; even extend by claiming imperial sanctions for their personal views and deeds. The acts of aggression abroad, acts of disobedience at home, political terror and open munity were all justified as being in accord with the true Imperial will. This misrepresented views brought about a social divergence during the Taishō era that showed that Japan is indeed turning into a militarized rule amidst such anarchy. Confronted with the back lashed of their own policy, parliamentarians failed to take immediate and drastic measures or even to stand firm and united amidst diversity. Instead, they all but openly admitted the autocracy by remaining silence and by compromising. Even though the liberal elements in the urban populations were dismayed, they were too weak politically and perhaps timorous to fight back. In contrast, the general rural and small-town populations accepted these acts of supposed devotion to the emperor at their face value and created an atmosphere so sympathetic to the extremists that such offenders were usually given absurdly light punishments. The psychological dynamics was influence upon the notion of a weak emperorship, loyalty and manipulation which muffled the trend toward democratic rule.

Even though i did mentioned that the concept of emperor-centric played an important role in halting democracy, the militarists could not have exploited if the armed forces had not in practice enjoyed considerable independence of public control and autonomy within the government. Scalapino (1953) argues that the Diet control over the cabinet was never fully established even in the 1920s, as the Diet never won full control over the state treasury . This showed that although the military did not dare to do away with the Diet and constitution entirely, because in theory it had been a gift the emperor, but the Diet was made meaningless and powerless in most part of the decision making towards a democratic Japan. The armed forces maintained a considerable influence and independent of the Cabinet by insisting that the Defense Minister be active military officers and therefore subject to military discipline and available for service in the cabinet only with military approval. This ruling was first made in 1895 and given imperial sanction in 1900, which permitted the armed forces to dissolve cabinets, or prevent unfavorable leaders from taking the premiership simply by refusing to let them accept portfolios in the government. This indicated that there are growing divergence of opinion and direction between the military and the civil government as early as 1912 to 1914. Duus (1968) commented that although this ruling was subsequently dropped, it was revived in the 1930s when it proved to be a valuable asset to the military in their bid for power. This proved that the military had not only established independence from the civil government but also won a virtual veto power over the cabinet that paved the way for any action the army wished to take.

With the inception of the Peace Preservation law and political manipulations by the military, it indirectly crafted Japan into being a modern totalitarian state. I infer that it was not merely an outgrowth of Japan’s feudalistic past but was equally a result of the modern economic and political policies. Modern communications as well as modern techniques of political and economic organizations had given the centralized authority of the 1920s far greater control over the lives of the Japanese than any Emperor, Shogun or Daimyo had ever exercised. Essential education for both male and female, electronic and advertising Medias, and obligatory military service had given those in power a holistic control over the hearts and minds of the people than they could dream of . As such, these apparatus evoked and manipulated the personality centered of the Japanese in controlling how they think and feel through the concept of nationalism.

Throughout the 1920s, Japanese leaders advocated colonial expansion which was inspired by Western-style imperialism. The policy of fukoku kyohei was still embedded in certain government officials. I believe that the outward expression of militarism, expansionism and imperialism were not part of the oligarchs’ plan through the handling of Saigo Takamori’s recommendation to invade Korea in 1873. Early leaning towards the military can be seen in the Conscription law of 1873 for self defense. The expansionist ideal was expressed when Baron General Tanaka Giichi intervened in the Chinese Civil war in 1928 . The turning point between the liberal 1920s and the reactionary 1930s came in 1931, when military forces without the approval or knowledge of the civil government started their own war in territorial aggrandizement. Japanese embarked on the conquest of Manchuria on the flimsy pretext that Chinese troops had tried to blow up the Japanese railway . By 1932, Manchuria was made into a puppet state and renamed Manchukuo headed by Puyi under military auspices. Western powers refuse to give diplomatic recognition to Manchukuo and the League of Nations condemned Japan as an aggressor . Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933. Discontented from abroad and fuelled with Japanese nationalism bolstered commitment to continental expansion and created an anti-Western mood. Unfurling the banner of Pan-Asianism, committed to defend the region against political and military interference from outside due to Japan impaired sovereignty. The consequence of this was the growth of an exaggerated form of nationalism; the Japanese quickly learned the usefulness of armed might and began to emphasize military preparedness. Since the leaders of the democratic movement were highly nationalistic, they were willing to support the principle of a strong militarized state. I guess history certainty repeated itself by asserting nationalism to arouse the nation in rejecting democracy and accepting military advancements.

The people as a whole accepted this act of unauthorized and certainly unjustified warfare with whole-hearted admiration. Instead of denouncing the militarist for acting against the will of the government and the emperor, the government happily accepted this expansion of the national domain and attempted to justify the acts of the military before a critical world view. The Japanese government maintained that there had been no war and called the whole conquest a mere “Incident.” In addition, Japanese validated that they are merely liberating Manchuria from Chinese rule by reinstating Emperor Puyi. Although i did stressed that that the Taishō emperor was weak in power, authority and healthy, it is possible that he was manipulated by the military. With the end of the Tsar rule of Russia due to the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, expansionism and military conquest was necessary to check the influence of Socialist Russia, to protect the line of imperial sovereignty as well as strive toward its line of economic advantage and equality through militaristic means before the world. Social Darwinism mentality (Xenophobic) and social solidarity too played a role in promoting survival of the strongest culture and towards a better future respectively .

The triple Intervention in 1895 forced Japan to give up Liaodong Peninsular and Russia moved into Port Arthur in 1898 further increased Japan’s sense of insecurity. The unequal provocation of the 1921-1922 Washington Conference which forced Japan an unfavorable battleship ratio of 5:5:3 for the US, Britain and Japan respectively and the Western powers at the London Naval conference of 1930 coerced Japan to accept the same ratio for its heavy cruisers . Series of coercive acts, insults, and provocation by Western Imperialist from the 1850s to the 1930s caused great anger that fester among the Japanese people. One such outrage could be seen in Hibiya incendiary Incident in protest of the terms of the Treaty of Portsmouth, which ended the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. This series of international affronts to Japanese pride, status and Imperial sovereignty provided fuel for the pro-nationalists and conservative militarist that democracy should be abolished. In addition, ideology by Kita Ikki who promoted a radical nationalist vision that would later inspired political terror managed to invoke an exaggerated nationalistic vibes. It stir up young military officer’s to rise up and seize power, suspended constitution, and remake the political structure to unite the emperor and the people in destroying the Anglo-American monopolies of Asia.

Such insults were not merely in Japan but in the international arena as well. Strong racial prejudice by Westerners toward Japanese led to several impertinent incidents for the Japanese people that nurtured a sense of threat called “Yellow Peril” in the west. In the 1919 Paris peace conference, western countries rejected a simple Japanese request to have racial equality clause included in the League of Nations covenant. In 1905, California passed anti-Japanese legislation. In the following year, the school board in San Francisco ordered Japanese and other Asian children to attend segregated schools. In 1924, USA passed the Japanese Exclusion Act to shut off Japanese Immigration.

Meanwhile, other military extremist at home had brought a sudden end to party rule by another form of direct action – political assassination. On May 15, 1932, a group of young naval officers and army cadets, claiming that they were attempting to free the emperor from evil advisers, assassinated Premier Inukai, a professional politician and the head of the majority Seiyukai party . The army, profiting from this incident, demanded the end of party cabinet and the bureaucrats, while condemning the act of violence, tacitly accepted it as judgment against party government. Such compromise governments became typical of the rest of the 1930s. The military element in succeeding Cabinets tended to grow and party representatives slowly dwindled in number, but the professional bureaucrats retained the central and, theoretically the dominant position throughout the decades. However, the militarist definitely took the lead in creating new policies of government. With the success of their Manchurian venture assured and with the support of sporadic acts of terrorism by individuals extremists, they forced as much as their program as they could on the compromise government. By simply refusing to recognize the authority of the Diet over the Cabinet, the militarists robbed the Diet of one power after another, and by the end of the decade they had reduced it to just being a helpless and petrified “debating society”. The Great depression resulted in a temporary collapse of capitalism, which means end of “World Trade”. Japan became increasingly isolated from other trading nations due to the weakening Zaibatsu which in turn weakening liberal forces. As such the government of Japan needed to renew interest in colonial expansion to solve Japan’s economic problems.

The militarist also sanctioned and encourage a veritable witch hunt for all persons whose slightest word or deed could be construed to be Lèse majesté. According to Tanaka (1988),Liberal educators were forced to resign their academic positions on the grounds that they had handled the imperial rescript on education improperly, and leading statesmen were driven out of political life because some unfortunate historical allusion involving an emperor . Even the two great Imperial Universities at Tokyo and Kyoto, which had always enjoyed great prestige and considerable academic freedom, were condemned for harboring “red” professors and were subjected to purges. In 1933, a group of liberal professors was forced out of the Law department of Kyoto imperial university and two years later Professor Minobe Tatsukichi of Tokyo, a leading authority on constitutional law and a member of the House of Peers were forced into dishonorable retirement because he had described the emperor as an “organ” of the state through the organic theory . Social scientists, liberal educators, and moderate politicians soon learned to remain silence if they could not express themselves in the mystical terms of ultra-nationalism and abject devotion to the emperor. This showed that during the Taishō democracy, freedom of speech, thought, academic freedom and autonomy of universities were denied that showed a totalitarian rule.

The pro-nationalists and conservative militarist made skillful though possibly unconscious use of the smear technique. They exploited to the full each example of parliamentary corruption, making even minor incident into major scandals which were thought to discredit all democratic governments. Since the Zaibatsu interests did exert an undue influence over the political parties, it was not hard to turn the vague economic unrest of the peasantry and the more conscious distaste for capitalism shared by various other groups in Japan into a distrust of democracy. Since both capitalism and democracy had developed under strong occidental influence, it was not hard to convert the hitherto latent resentment of western power and prestige into an animosity for the political and economic institutions derived in such large part of the west. The military even extended their power into forming coalition with the zaibatsu however it was perhaps nothing more than a marriage of convenience, but it was nevertheless a successful working arrangement to perpetuate financial aid for the war. Not forgetting pro-nationalists organization and patriotic societies such as the Black Ocean Society (Gen'yōsha) and later offshoot, the Black Dragon society (kokuryūkai) which are active in domestic and foreign politics through helping foment pro-war sentiments, and supported pro-nationalists causes through the end of 2nd World War.

A major reason for the weakness of the defense of parliamentary government in Japan was that many members of the parliamentary coalition had little faith in democracy as such and looked upon the Diet and party government merely as convenient mechanisms through which they could exert their own influence. Such groups were won over with relative ease to a new coalition of forces, which had little trouble in silencing the weak and inexperienced elements still committed to democracy. The transition from the parliamentary 1920s to the increasing totalitarian 1930s, thus, came about through no political upheaval but rather through a small shift in the make-up of the forces which stood behind the government.

In retrospect, it is evident that the breakdown of democracy was the result of both internal and international factors that brought about the end of democratic developments. Approaches such as Western Impact Japanese response and Japan-centered analysis proved to be successful in explicating the declining trend sequentially right in 1905 and till 1932. The Taishō period indeed revealed striking dynamics of political, economic, military, social and psychological of Japan in general and Japanese in particular which brought about a failed experiment in democratizing Japan.

Bibliography

1.Cohen, Paul A. China unbound: evolving perspectives on the Chinese past. New York: Routledge, 2003. DS755.2 Coh 2003
2.Dickens, Peter. Social Darwinism: linking evolutionary thought to social theory. Buckingham [England]; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2000. HM631 Dic 2000
3.Duus, Peter. The rise of modern Japan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. DS881.9 Duu
4.Duus, Peter. Party rivalry and political change in Taishō Japan. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1968. DS886 Duu
5.Falt Olavi K, “Emperorship as a National Symbol in Taishō Japan (1912-1926)”, in “Western interactions with Japan : expansion, the armed forces & readjustment, 1859-1956, pp. 57-68.” ed. Lowe, Peter & Moeshart, Herman (Sandgate, Folkestone, Kent : Japan Library, 1990) DS881.9 Wes
6.Fewster, Stuart. Japan: from shogun to Superstate. Ashford: Norbury, 1988. DS881.3 Few
7.Scalapino, Robert A. Democracy and the party movement in prewar Japan; the failure of the first attempt. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1953. JQ1681 Sca
8.Sims, Richard L. A political history of modern Japan: 1868-1952. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing, 1991. DS882 Sim
9.Stegewerns, Dick. “The Japanese 'Civilization Critics' and the National Identity of Their Asian Neighbours, 1918-1932: The Case of Yoshino Sakuzo”. In Imperial Japan and national identities in Asia, 1895-1945, pp.107-129. Edited by Li Narangoa and Robert Cribb. London; New York: Routledge, 2003. DS881.9 Imp 2003
10.Takayoshi, Matsuo. “The Development of Democracy in Japan – Taishō Democracy: Its flowering and breakdown”, Journal of Wiley-Interscience-The developing economics, 4, 4 (December 1966): 612-637. Article retrieved April 5, 2010, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com
11.Tanaka, Hiroshi. “Liberal Democracy in Japan: The Role of Intellectuals”, Hitotsubashi Journal of social sciences, 20(April 1988): 23-34. Article retrieved April 5, 2010, from www.jstor.com
12.Totten, George O. Democracy in prewar Japan; groundwork or facade? Boston, Heath [1965] DS888.5 Tot