« [SSJ: 6706] ICAS Academic Conference, June 11th and 12th: EMERGENT FORMS OF ENGAGEMENT AND ACTIVISM IN JAPAN | Main | [SSJ: 6709] Job opening: Lecturer in Japanese Studies, Sheffield »

June 8, 2011

[SSJ: 6708] Re: A Defeat or a Victory for Kan?

From: Benoit Leduc
Date: 2011/06/08

Kan stated that he wants to resign. He probably sees no ownership of the PM's office, just like his predecessors who can enjoy Genro positions without all the pressure of the top position. I think most concerns expressed in the media and by financial analysts about Japan's high turnover rate in the PM's office discount the importance in decision-making that past PM keep on playing for life. If it were me I would rather be a Genro (influential in the backroom) than a fully media-exposed PM in the middle of a crisis.

Imho, the focus of attention should be on the reasons why the LDP came up with a no-confidence motion in the middle of a crisis--a fairly bad timing politically speaking. One possible reason is the PM's office decision to shut down the reactor at Namaoka, among others plants: there are powerful business interests impacted by such a decision. Currently there are (with a quick googling) 35 out of 54 nuclear reactors shut down for reviews, inspections and repairs (until the end of the summer). It is not clear to me whether all those decisions were made by the PM or by the regulatory agency. The electrical companies and all the consortiums having to reduce production would logically dislike having to take a step back from decisions make decades ago even if natural gas became a viable alternative in the future. But I haven't seen the evidence to confirm that the decision was from the PMO nor that the no-confidence vote was motivated by such design. I am just hypothesizing (if that verb exists).

As for his decision to resign or not, the PM shines as much as a light bulb under the sun when such large interests are involved, imo. However if the above hypothesis was true and he did resign, the questioning of, or shift away from nuclear would probably not happen and the machine would go back to pilot control with fairly limited surveillance over the plants.

The US has learned to develop independent surveillance after an incident in the 1970s, there are lessons to learn from the current incident as well.

Benoit Leduc

Approved by ssjmod at 03:06 PM