Great questions from Peter Cave. Let me just start the ball rolling on a discourse over these by giving very short answers from my perspective and let others take over from there. See below.

Best regards,
Ellis
************************************************
On Jul 28, 2011, at 6:45 PM, SSJ-Forum Moderator wrote:

> From: Peter Cave (Peter.Cave@manchester.ac.uk)
> Date: 2011/07/29
>
>
> So the first question. Why has the DPJ proved so
incompetent in
> government? Is it (a) an inevitable consequence of
its lack of
> cohesion around any ideology, set of policies, or
political
> principles? (b) the result of an inadequate internal
power and
> policymaking structure? (c) a contingent outcome of
the regrettable
> existence of certain powerful and destructive
individuals within its
> ranks? (d) a mixture of all three? (e) Other (fill in
the blank)?
>
ESK: All of the above. But I would put more emphasis on some and add another. I would emphasize a bit more than the others a variation on b) The institutional structure of the Diet. Without one party in control of both Houses, effective policymaking is impossible. The Diet is elected by 4 completely different electoral systems now (Large district SNTV and open-list PR in the HOC; Single Member Districts and closed-list PR in the HOR) with different timing of elections. Elections take place at very short intervals given this structure, are likely to produce somewhat different outcomes, and even when a party like the DPJ captures a large majority in one House as in 2009, within a year the combination of some disillusionment among voters and the different HOC electoral systems produce another party in control of the other House (as in 2010). This, when combined with the fact that the DPJ has never been in government before and has few except some senior politicians who have, results in a learning period of incompetence (that we've seen); but also it confronts an opposition party, the LDP, that has never been in opposition before, is a rural rump of its former self, and doesn't seem to have any idea of presenting an alternative viable vision except opposition for
opposition's sake. The final element you did not
mention above, is, as in all the industrialized democracies, the incredible impatience of the voting public--in the tv and digital age of poor economic performance, governments are expected to produce NOW or the day before yesterday, and to deliver all its promises immediately. This also exacerbates the structural problems of the DIet above.
> Second question (linked to the first). Is there a
realistic prospect
> of the DPJ improving its competence?
> Why/why not?
>
ESK: Yes, but first it has to a)have the time in office to do so b)have its next generation of leaders acquire experience and expertise in governing, and c) gradually allow them to come to the fore with the retirement of the "troika" Genro of Hatoyama, Ozawa, and Kan. Will they be giving the luxury of time to do this? Probably not.

> Third question. Is there a reasonable prospect in the
foreseeable
> future of a relatively strong government that can
last for several
> years and carry out its political programme? Why/why
not? If not, to
> what extent is this due to the failings of the DPJ
and LDP, and to
> what extent is it due to the inherent problems of the
current
> constitutional arrangements (i.e. the prospect of
endless 'nejire
> kokkai')?

ESK: See above on 'nejire kokkai' etc. Given the lack of cohesiveness of the parties, the unpopularity and failure of the DPJ's current senior leaders, and the fact that the old, veteran LDP leaders and those remaining in the party are unlikely to let the younger generation really reform it anytime soon, and the impatience of the public....unlikely.
>
> I can't say that I feel very optimistic about any
change for the
> better.

ESK: I've become pretty pessimistic too for the next 5-10 years. But then no one saw Koizumi coming in 2001 either. "Miracles" can happen. But I wouldn't bet on it? But then, as you pointed out, there's always someone worse off, in this case the U.S.'s totally dysfunctional current political process and culture.
There's nothing wrong with either economy that a good dose of political leadership and all sides thinking a bit about the national interest instead of their own narrow partisan interests wouldn't cure. But that doesn't seem likely to happen. We may well look back on this period as the defining moment when Japan gave up its leadership in Asia (prematurely) to China, and simultaneously the moment when China began to take over global leadership from the U.S. Both were avoidable but dysfunctional politics in both cases made it unlikely to be avoided. Too pessimistic? I hope so; but fear not.
>
> Peter Cave
> Lecturer in Japanese Studies
> University of Manchester=