H381 "Imperial Democracy"
Background: Who are the players and how did things become as they were? For
more information on Taisho politics and society, click here.
Why would we say that the Taisho Era was "democratic"
or liberal?
Smith's Critique of Taisho Democracy's limits:
i.e., Taisho society was increasingly democratic but not especially liberal.
. .It was for the most part in the structural rather than the attitudinal
sense that Japan was becoming more and more democratic in the early twentieth
century.
1. It's liberal character is exaggerated. The Parties were too pragmatic and
realistic in their quest for power. Never were oriented towards "ideals,"
principles, or ideology.
Hara was known for ably recruiting "up-and-coming" buearucrats
into the party, getting them to run for office, funding that run, and then
using their votes to pass legislation that he wanted to see passed. The main
program of the Seiyukai under Hara was called the
"Positive Policy" of the Seiyukai. The main, overarching goal
over time was to replace hanbatsu (clique) government with political
party-based cabinets and achieve the goals of fukoku-kyohei. So his
policies were expressed in a 4-point platform:
1. Educational Reform = new schools, books, construction contracts, etc.
2. Transportation and Communication Networks = RR, telegraph, telephone
lines
3. National Defense = ships, guns, ammunition, unforms, troops, bases,
training academies
4. Industrial Growth = fukoku kyohei, encouragement of trade and
industry
2. The period is too short--really only 1918-1923. Inspired by wartime Allied
propaganda, but buttressed by the Rice Riots and growing Labor Unrest at home.
The labor movement in general, and the whole spectrum of leftwing activity,
were given a boost by the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
3. Most liberal part of Taisho came from outside--international. Wilsonian
influence was real but remained in an imperialistic framework which was rarely
called into question (except by Yoshino Sakuzo). Smith sees Japan's commitment
to this experiment was as much pragmatic as idealistic.
4. "True" liberals existed but were few and far between. Ozaki Yukio,
Ishibashi Tanzan, Yoshino Sakuzo. But they were often isolated and not tyical
of the Taisho period in general. Even the socialists seemed to prefer a strong
state.
Four Varieties of Taisho Non-Liberalism
1. The bureaucracy = elitist, hostile to politics in liberal sense of open
conflict and competition among divese interest groups. Bureaucrats were willing
to champion government programs on behalf of poor and working classes, but did
not want to empower them to participate. So opposed local autonomy and party
rule.
2. Socialist Post-Liberalism = true bourgeois liberals were to be found in
the socialist movement rather than established parties. But Smith claims they
favored a strong central state as a mechanism to achieving socialism. So they
were statist and collectivists rather than true liberal egalitarians.
3. Grass Roots Il-Liberalism = local organizations like
--chonaikai - urban neighborhood associations
--seinendan - rural youth groups
--dosokai - school alumni associations
--labor and tenant unions
--urban prefectural clubs
--village shrine/religious associations
--patriotic ceremonies held at shrines and villages
--New Religions like Omotokyo
--Not to mention the Imperial Military Reserve Association--a powerful
agent for focusing loyalty up toward the emperor and the state, and reinforcing
patriotism, service, respect for leaders and social superiors, traditional
values like consensus and social harmony, etc.
were all in their various ways conservative, particularistic, nationalistic,
and supportive of the state
4. Nationalism was prevalent and hostile to liberalism. Right-wing nationalism
was a small but significant voice in the 1920s that continued to grow.
Two other limitations:
1. Parties were never mass-based organizations.
2. One of the political parties' major weaknesses was that they never justified
themselves in terms of core Japanese values (harmony, selflessness, dedication).
So they came out being vulnerable to charges of representing narrow, selfish,
"private" interests of businessmen, professional politicians, lobbyists,
bankers, capitalists, etc.
Andrew Gordon's notion of "Imperial Democracy"
1. We need to lengthen out our view of Taisho so that we don't limit it to
1912-1926, but go back to 1905 and stretch it up to 1932. Then we would see:
- Diet emerging as a central fixture in political order
- Seiyukai emerging as major party
- 2nd, anti-Seiyukai force, the Doshikai/Kenseikai/Minseito
emerges as counterweight
- a sustained effort inside and outside the Diet to expand
the Suffrage to Universal Manhood Suffrage finally achieved in 1925
- a strong Feminist tradition emerges
- Liberal, democratic and socialist thought flowered
- Labor movement emerges as a force for social change as unions
and strikes grew so WORKING CLASS is involved
- Voices on the Left are more ubiquitous like,
-
-
Kawakami Hajime whose Bimbo monogatari, or Tales of Poverty
(1918), wrestled in simple language with the basics of global economics
and the problem of poverty in modern times.
- So there was a broad-based, profound movement for change
occurring, so that this "movement" between 1905-1932 was not so narrow and
shallow as Smith may have us believe.
Why "Imperial Democracy"? Because we
start with Imperial Bureaucracy, i.e., the early Meiji OLIGARCHIC
STRUCTURE of Government where the Restoration Leaders and their
subordinates are in charge with little or no power sharing. But out
of this initial arrangement is carved "Imperial Democracy"--enabled
by the PRM and the Meiji Constitution-- embodying powerful forces for
change.
Two versions of Imperial Democracy
existed:
1. SEIYUKAI = the Conservative version:
Bureaucrats in the Ministries and managers in large-scale Industries who
cooperated to make Social Policies aimed at restoring social order and harmony--i.e.,
the JES for example--through, especially, the Home Ministry which reached
out to the cities, urban neighborhood associations, and DOWN to Village Youth
Groups, the Reserve Associations, orchestrated Shrine mergers and consolidations
of 190,000 shrines to create a state-centered network of shrines.
Meanwhile, the Military had its Imperial Reserve Associations in every village
where they could "reinforce the social order" and be called out
in an emrgency. Some 2 million reservists belonged by 1918. "If we correctly
guide the reservists. . .we can completely control the ideals of the populace
and firm up the nation's foundation.' (Gen. Tanaka Giichi, 1913; see Gordon,
p. 136-37).
And, further, the Education System, was doing its part adjusting the curriculum
to being more nationalistic and emperor-focused while adding two more years
of compulsory education.
So the object was to get down to villages and local neighborhood, organize
citizens into groups, diffuse nation-centered information and patriotic rituals,
and mobilize the populace for social control purposes.
But Workers and Tenant farmers got very little out of this version. Workers
had neither the Economic Protection from the state nor the Political Means
to Protest or claim rights for themselves. So the question was, should imperial
Japan be a democracy just for men of capital and landed property only? Or
should society and the political process be more open and allow all men--and
women!--to participate in the political process? Hara Kei could not agree.
"It's too soon to abolish the property tax," he would say. "It's
a dangerous idea. I cannot agree."
In 1919, Hara helped found a think tank to study social problems and promote
harmony among capital and labor called "the Harmonization Society"
with state and corporate financial support. He also wanted the Ministry of
Agriculture and Commerce to study tenant farming issues but landlords objected
so that had to be shelved. In 1920 he moved harshly against a strike by steelworkers.
So it's pretty clear where his orientation was.
Cautiously and gradually, Seiyukai broadened scope of legal participation
in national politics, and accepted controlled labor organization in the workplace.
But the bottom line was always: How will it benefit the Seiyukai? Universal
Manhood Suffrage, though, was too radical for Hara in 1919, 1920, and even
later after his death.
2. KENSEIKAI = a more Liberal version of Imperial Democracy
Supported such things as:
- Universal Manhood Suffrage
- Tenant disputes mediation law 1924
- Shidehara, "go slow" approach in
China
- Broader political and civil rights for
women
But both accepted Imperialism, Capitalism and Parliamentary Government. See
the PPL-- the Peace Preservation Law. In the meantime, a Marxist movement contesting
Capitalism, Imperialism and Parliamentary Politics emerged in the early 1920s.
Hence, Japan in the 1920s was LURCHING back and forth between
different stances appearing unstable and fragile in social cohesion
and unity.
See also an interesting essay by Tetsuo Kogawa on Japan as a manipulated society
focusing on the tennosei or emperor system at: http://anarchy.k2.tku.ac.jp/non-japanese/manipulated.html