In response to Sarah Hyde's comments, I don't think Hatoyama should be regarded as a representative of the DPJ's right-wing. He may have been in favor of constitutional reform but as I have shown in my book on the topic, Hatoyama's reform draft is among the most moderate proposals published during the last few decades. Not only has he left the articles pertaining to fundamental human rights untouched, he has also spoken out in favor of a female Tennou. Granted Asou has supported a female Tennou as well, but unlike Asou, Hatoyama has no track record of making questionable comments regarding the war. Last but not least, Hatoyama has quite idealistcally articulated his intention to create an Asian version of the European Union within the next five decades. To the right-wing of both DPJ and LDP such thoughts are generally anathema.

Ozawa's case is more difficult, because he has been extremely flexible when it comes to policy, not to mention ideology (admittedly some of his former Liberal Party followers, e.g. Nishioka clearly represent the DPJ's right wing, though). For instance, throughout the 1990s Ozawa kept emphasizing neoliberal reforms and a constitutional amendment, but once his old pals in the LDP decided to execute those neoliberals reforms, Ozawa returned to his Tanaka-Takeshita faction roots, in other words spending and worrying about the budget later. As for constitutional reform, he has shown no interest in the topic anymore, since he had become party president and secretary-general.

The schism within the DPJ is not about ideology, it is about power. There are certainly ideological differences, but they are far less important than the internal struggle of the Han- vs Shin-Ozawa groups.

Best,
Chris

Chris Winkler, PhD
Senior Research Fellow
German Institute for Japanese Studies (DIJ) Tokyo