In response to Earl's posting:

>>Question: Are contemporary DPJ "groups" in any
significant way
different from the "factions" (habatsu) that were the unit of analysis for LDP succession tussles? Or, is change in terminology another reflection of the degree to which the DPJ is really LDP-Lite.

Earl,

You've asked a really interesting question about factions versus groups, and I'm sure Ellis will have a lot to say about this topic.

As a very general answer, the word 'group' is more appropriate than the word 'faction' to describe these conglomerations of DPJ members, although the Ozawa 'group' does have some faction-like characteristics, as I illustrate below. The DPJ groups are more accurately called 'guruppu' rather than 'habatsu' because they are literally 'supporters' groups' (i.e. groups of supporters that back their leader for the party leadership and prime ministership). Membership is much more fluid than under the old faction system as are the loyalties of the members. The 'group' is not necessarily all that reliable in backing their leader, or the person he backs. In the old days, you'd be out on your ear showing that sort of disloyalty. The old factions were organisations where the members completely obeyed the leader - it was a condition of membership - not so the DPJ 'groups'. This is because the level and quality of patron-client ties between leaders and followers under the old system was so high.

I think there are two principal structural causes for the continuing existence of these 'groups' in the DPJ.
Firstly, if a DPJ member wants to stand as DPJ representative, they have to have the support of at least 20 Diet members in the party; and secondly, there are rules for a regular turnover of DPJ representatives (I think every two years like the LDP). Back in the old days of course, there were other structural causes - the MMD electoral system, and individual Diet members'
need for money and party (i.e. factional) endorsement to stand for election. These days, the party supplies a lot of the money and the endorsements, which has promoted the importance of the party secretary-general at the expense of the 'group'/faction leaders. That said, Ozawa, does provide (election) funds to the members of his group as well as 'party' endorsement, both as a result of his position as DPJ secretary-general (which is why he likes this position) and out of his own pocket, hence the loyalty of his group is tighter than the others. And he uses elections as opportunities for recruiting new members to his 'group' as in the old days. Another of the secrets of Ozawa's factional recruitment strategy is to offer the services of his political machine to chosen candidates, furnishing them with campaign workers from amongst his Diet followers and secretaries. It is customary for some 20 of Ozawa's secretaries, the so-called 'army corps of secretaries' (hisho gundan) to conduct thorough grassroots door-to-door election campaigns across the country. The solidarity of the Ozawa group derives from his calculated strategy of providing this kind of direct assistance to selected affiliates. Ozawa also reportedly pushed some members of his group for cabinet positions in the new Kan administration in June 2010. But the seniority principle does not really operate in any of the DPJ groups as far as I know - certainly not anything like it did under the old LDP.
As Ellis and Robert argue in their book (putting it better than me), the LDP factions developed into institutionalised organisations operating on the seniority principle - basically you had to be on a factional ladder in order to get promoted to any kind of high office - either in government or in the party (including, of course, the cabinet). And the faction leaders passed the prime ministership around amongst themselves (like pass the parcel). The non-Ozawa groups in the DPJ don't have these faction-like characteristics, or only resemble the old factions in the weakest sense. Ellis said in an earlier SSJ-Forum posting that these 'groups' in the DPJ resemble the old-style factions of the 1950s and 1960s as groups of personal followers of a particular LDP leader (basically before Tanaka came along and streamlined and institutionalised them, and turned his own faction into the primary instrument of his power with loyalty so tight his faction was called the Tanaka 'army corps', or Tanaka gundan). However, the Ozawa group does resemble the Tanaka faction in this important sense - it is the primary instrument of Ozawa's political power within the party - the instrument that he has at his disposal for various power plays (Kan has certainly suffered from this in recent months).

Altogether there are nine 'groups' in the DPJ, including the Hatoyama group, Kan group etc (and ex-DSP/ex-JSP groups - so not all groups of personal followers), but what sets the Ozawa group apart from the rest is its size as the biggest group in the DPJ, its strong solidarity, and the high level of personal loyalty to Ozawa. For example, the Ozawa group acted in perfect unison to put Hatoyama into the top job in May 2009. Members gave their unanimous support to Hatoyama on Ozawa's instructions. And we all know what happened in September 2010. Ex-head of the DPJ secretariat, Ito Atsuo, argues that Ozawa's 'close associates and young faction members are complete "believers in the Ozawa religion" and other members won't oppose Ozawa's will either'. The members are under heavy pressure to do what Ozawa says; failure to obey could result in a withdrawal of their patron's good will. This group strongly underlines the fact that the basis of Ozawa's power within the party is largely personal and that he dispenses patronage like the old-style faction leaders.
His group's high level of unity ensures that Ozawa's wishes will strongly influence the outcome of any DPJ presidential race (none more so than the current one).
In short, it gives him the power to act as kingmaker.
In this and many other ways, Ozawa is an agent of path dependence in Japanese politics and is blocking the true modernisation of the DPJ.

Sorry to go on for so long and to get a bit diverted towards the end - but you can't understand the spectrum of DPJ 'groups' without analysing the Ozawa 'group'.

Aurelia George Mulgan
UNSW, Canberra