Third, opposition parties such as the Communist Party of Japan and the Social Democratic Party of Japan strongly oppose the amendment. The main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party, has clearly opposed the constitutional revision by the Abe administration and refused to participate in the Constitutional Review Conference of the National Assembly, believing that the abolition of the right to collective self-defense is obviously unconstitutional and undermines the constitutional system on which post-war Japan relied. According to the rules, draft amendments to the Constitution must first be discussed in the Constitutional Review Conference of the House of Representatives and the Senate. If Mr Abe sidelined the opposition to discuss the changes in the constitutional review committee and force a vote in both houses of parliament, his ruling coalition, the Komeito Party, would be in trouble. What's more, such an act would challenge the basic rules of Japanese party politics and carry major risks, especially when it comes to referendums, which are considered to be the final step in revising the constitution.
Fourth, and most important, there is a lack of public support. Opinion polls from various sources show that while support for constitutional change is on the rise, there is no firm consensus among the Japanese public to overhaul Article 9, the core article of the pacifist constitution. This is due to the profound influence and the pacifist constitution has brought enormous benefits to the security and prosperity of postwar Japan, both in terms of ideology and practice, and in terms of reflection on the destruction caused by Japan in World War II. So even if Mr Abe wanted to seize the rare opportunity of winning the 2016 election to pursue his political agenda at one blow, he did not force it through the National Assembly because he did not have full confidence in the outcome of the referendum. By calculation, Mr Abe will pay the political price of stepping down if he loses the referendum.
Recognizing the difficulties of amending the pacifist constitution, Mr Abe has taken the route of "substituting amendments with additional clauses or amendments". Although New Komeito is strongly negative about amending the peace clause, this strategy plays to the party's preference for "adding the constitution". In this way, environmental issues and privacy, along with other basic civil rights that reflect social progress and modernization, can be added to the Constitution. Opposition parties such as the Democratic Party of Japan and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPFP) have also advocated "constitutional additions", adding constitutional rights to limit the prime minister's ability to dissolve the House of Representatives, and citizens' "right to know" in civic affairs. Against this background, Abe has put forward the above four so-called "constitutional" plans. Of these four, the second item, the state of emergency bill, is controversial. However, since the debate may fall within the realm of national crisis management, the project is expected to be easily accepted by the public. The third project, involving the House of Representatives district, focused on the legitimacy of the election and attracted widespread public concern. The fourth concerns free education, which relates to the well-being of almost every family, especially young people. All three are basically side dishes to Mr Abe's main agenda. In other words, it is a tactical measure designed to accommodate the ruling coalition, opposition parties and referendum. Apparently, the "main course" is the first, aimed at enshrining the Self-Defense Forces in the Constitution. Its essence is to enable Japan to provide a legal basis for its military and for Japan to develop a strong military force.
In a series of elections since Mr. Abe's return to power, the campaign strategy of his Liberal Democratic Party has often played the economic cards, emphasizing the effects of "Abenomics" while deliberately avoiding the issue of constitutional change. By contrast, in the current election of members of the lower house, Abe not only included the constitutional amendment in the LDP election convention, but also caused a storm in the debate and became the focus of debate. During his campaign, Abe has repeatedly said that the election should be for the public to decide whether to vote for parties and candidates willing to discuss constitutional amendment or not. Natsuo Yamaguchi, a delegate from New Komeito, responded that setting a controversial agenda would confuse voters, Both the ruling and opposition parties should be genuinely committed to creating a fair environment for discussion at the Constitutional Review Conference of the National Parliament. He also claimed that if "discussion of a constitutional amendment is necessary", it was an imposition on people's perception of the outcome. The Constitutional Democratic Party also expressed displeasure and ridiculed Mr. Abe's controversial efforts to amend the Constitution. According to a poll conducted by the Asahi Shimbun on July 24, 2019, among the prime minister's five most-desired policies, "social security" received 38 percent of the votes, while "constitutional amendments" received the least support, at just 3 percent. The poll shows the constitutional amendment's unpopularity as a contentious issue in the just-concluded election, and suggests the road in that direction is bumpy.
As for the significance of the 2019 lower house elections, Abe has understandably linked the LDP's victory to constitutional revision, stressing that the LDP's victory shows the efforts to amend the constitution have the majority support of the Japanese people. He said opposition parties should respect the will of the public and discuss the proposals with the ruling party in the Constitutional Review Committee so that the draft amendments can be submitted to parliament at an early date. Needless to say, this is an over-generalised interpretation of the election results. Indeed, Mr Abe has deliberately used the contentious issue of constitutional amendments in the hope of using public opinion to force opposition compliance, such as by putting pressure on the main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP), which has explicitly refused to co-operate. Responding to Mr Abe's comments, Yukio Edano, a CDP deputy, commented that the fact that the election result did not support the constitutional amendment force by the two-thirds threshold in the National Assembly was itself a reflection of public opinion.
