Perhaps 13 or 14 years ago Ian Buruma wrote an essay about the the weakness and short incumbency of Japanese prime ministers. His argument: Japanese politician doesn't accept a prime minister for a long time, they all want to be prime minister. And they don't want strong prime minister he wrote , they want politician like Keizo Obuchi who is more a moderator between different groups not a political leader. So Fred Uleman is right when he writes this is not a problem of the DPJ.

It's the political class who plays this game to come in office and to resign when someone ask for it. There are only few politican who didn't play this game Shigeru Yoshida, Eisaku Sato, Yazuhiro Nakasone and Junichiro Koizumi. Naoto Kan is like Koizumi a single minded man.
He doesn't depend on a group which ask him to resign after a year premiership. But he is not so connected with the public like Koizumi, even he wants to win his popularity by his anti-nuclear policy.

To change this change game Japanese prime minister should have a stronger position by law. They should have the right to say what other minister have to do.
The must have the right to formulate the direction of the policy. This is what primeminister in other country like uk can do. Tony Blair was the leader of British government, even when the party was against his Irak policy.

But the political class doesn't accept this kind of leadership. I remember some Japanese MPs called Koizumi an fascist because of this style of leadership.

The Japanese media and the public have the same kind of thinking like the political class. It seems a long time ago when the public wished a longer serving leader who guarantees political continuity. At first the public praise every new leader and after a short time they wish him to hell.

If the political class doesn't accept real leadership and the public only looks for short time results of a new political leader political continuity and the necessary control or the bureaucracy will be impossible.

Siegfried Knittel
Free lancer journalist