A Handbook of Modern Japan

by Ernest W. Clement

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

“The Story of Japan” (Murray), “Advance Japan” (Morris), and “The Yankees of the East” (Curtis), give some information here and there about the government of Japan. But especially helpful are Wigmore’s articles in the “Nation” and “Scribner’s Monthly,” Iyenaga’s “Constitutional Development of Japan,” Knapp’s “Feudal and Modern Japan,” Count (now Marquis) Itō’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the Empire of Japan,” and Lay’s “History of Japanese Political Parties” (Transactions Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. xxx. part iii.). See also “The Political Ideas of Modern Japan” (Kawakami), and “Dai Nippon” (Dyer), chaps. xiii. and xiv. Uycharu’s “Political Development of Japan (1867-1909)” is the latest and best.

CHAPTER X
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

Outline of Topics: Local government under feudalism; periods of modern local self-government; gradual development therein; prefectural assemblies; candidates and electors; standing committee; sessions; business; speaking; petitions; how bills become laws; powers of prefectural assemblies, theoretical and practical; residents and citizens of cities, towns, and villages; rights and duties of citizens; administration in city, town, and village; city council; town and village officials; city assembly; assemblymen; powers of city assembly; town or village assembly; special provisions for towns and villages; administration of territories; pacification of Formosa; colonial government; policy in Formosa; political progress in Japan.—Bibliography.

WE have already noted incidentally in preceding chapters some of the steps in the development of local self-government in Japan; and now we must treat that subject more particularly. First it is well to observe in passing that the steps from feudalism to local self-government were not so difficult as might be imagined; for under the feudal system local government by clans had prevailed.[98] And yet when feudalism was abolished, the reconstruction of local government was entered upon slowly and cautiously in order to minimize jealousies and other obstacles.

Wigmore, in his articles[99] on this subject, divides the period from 1867 to 1889 into two parts (1867-1878 and 1878-1889), and explains as follows: “The former was occupied with testing the capacity of the people for self-government; the latter with extending to them a larger and larger measure of power, and in advancing towards a proper degree of decentralization.” As he wrote in 1890, he was just at the beginning of the third period, what he himself calls “a new period,” during which local self-government, under the new constitutional régime, was to be still further expanded in the line of popular privileges.

After the Shōgunate fell, but before feudalism was formally abolished, that is, from 1867 to 1871, the chiefs of the clans were allowed to continue their administration of local affairs under the title of chi-hanji (local governor). But when feudalism was formally abolished in 1871, these feudal lords were retired on annuities; their fiefs (263 in number) were incorporated, regardless of former geographical and feudal boundaries, and with regard for convenience of administration by the central government, into 72 Ken and 3 Fu; and outsiders were largely appointed to the position of governor in these new local governments. The first attempts on the part of the central government to consult local public opinion were by means of meetings of the local officials; but the people were gradually allowed, in rather an informal and limited way, to have a voice in certain matters. In 1878, however, as we have seen, prefectural assemblies, the members of which should be chosen by popular election, were established; and just ten years later a law extending local self-government to cities, towns, and villages was enacted, to go into effect in 1889. And these two agencies of local self-government in Japan are worthy of a little study.

The Japanese Kenkwai and Fukwai correspond, in general, with an American State legislature, but differ in many respects, because they are part of a centralized national administration. They are “to counsel about the budget of expenses to be met by local taxation, and about the manner of collecting such taxes.” The members are elected in each Ken or Fu according to the population, at the rate of 1 member for each 20,000 people. Each electoral district may also elect yobi-in (reserve members), twice the number of regular members. As their name indicates, they are to take the places of regular members who may for any reason be unable to serve. It is, therefore, unlikely that there would ever be a vacancy to be filled by a special election; for each member has two “substitutes” ready to step into his vacant place! The term of service covers 4 years; but half of the members retire every 2 years. Each member receives an emolument of 1 yen per diem during the session, and travelling expenses.

A candidate for representative in a prefectural assembly must be over 25 years of age, a permanent resident of that Ken or Fu, and be paying an annual land-tax of more than 10 yen. Voters in such an election must be over 20 years of age, permanent residents of that Ken or Fu, and be paying annual land-taxes of more than 5 yen. There are about 2,000,000 voters in all.

From among the members, the assembly elects a “standing committee of from five to seven persons,” who serve for a period of two years. They remain in the capital throughout the year, to give advice when the Governor asks it about the manner and order of carrying out the enactments of the assembly and about the payment of extraordinary expense. A member of this committee receives “from 30 yen to 80 yen per month, and travelling expenses.”

The ordinary annual session of an assembly opens some time in November and continues for not more than 30 days. But the Governor has power to call a special session and to suspend an assembly; while the power to prorogue an assembly rests with the Minister of State for Home Affairs.

Each session of an assembly is formally “opened” by the Governor; and the business to come before the assembly is presented in bills originating with him and his subordinates. At any time, when a member of the assembly wishes explanations concerning any matter within the purview of the assembly, the Governor or his representative must explain. In fact, such officials may speak at any time, provided they do not interrupt the speech of a member; but they have no vote.

NAVAL LEADERS OF JAPAN
ADMIRAL ENOMOTO
ADMIRAL KABAYAMA

When a member wishes to address the assembly, he rises, calls out “Gichō” (Chairman), and gives the number of his seat. When the chairman has recognized him by repeating that number, he “has the floor.”[100]

If other matters, besides those included in the “original bill(s)” of the Governor, seem to at least two members to warrant discussion, they present these matters in the form of petitions; and if the assembly grants permission, these petitions may be discussed, like bills.

No bill becomes a law until it has been signed by the Governor. If the latter does not agree with a bill, he may appeal to the Department of Home Affairs, where it will be finally decided.

If we now endeavor to measure the extent and limitations of the power of a Japanese prefectural assembly, we may say that in theory a Kenkwai or a Fukwai is by no means entirely independent of the central government, nor does it possess absolute control of the matters of its own Ken or Fu. It will be noticed that in all cases the final ratification or decision rests with the Governor or the Department of Home Affairs. The latter also has the power in its own hands of suspending an assembly at its discretion. It would seem, then, that theoretically a Fukwai or a Kenkwai is pretty much under the control of the central government, and has very little real power of its own. Its nature appears more like that of an elective advisory board than of a legislative body.

But, in practice and in fact, a wise Governor, though he is an appointive officer of the central government, does not often put himself in opposition to public opinion, unless it be a case of the greatest importance; and the Department of Home Affairs is loath to exercise authority unless it is absolutely necessary. The central government holds the power to control these assemblies if it should be necessary; but it also respects public opinion, and allows local self-government as far as possible.[101]

The extension of local self-government to cities, towns, and villages (shi, chō, and son) led to the introduction into the Japanese language of several special terms, like jūmin (resident) and kōmin (citizen), and to a careful distinction between the respective rights and duties of the two. The “residents” of a city [town or village] include “all those who have their residence in the city [town or village], without distinction of sex, age, color, nationality, or condition in life.” A “citizen,” however, must be “an independent male person,” that is, one who has completed his twenty-fifth year and has a household; he must be “a subject of the empire and in the enjoyment of his civil rights”; and for two years he must have been a resident of the given local division, must have contributed toward its common burdens, and must have paid therein a “national land-tax of 2 or more yen in other direct national taxes.” The rights of a citizen over and above his rights as a resident are simply but comprehensively stated. They consist in the privilege of voting in the local elections, and of eligibility to the honorary offices. There is, however, a slight qualification of this seemingly universal citizen suffrage. Those whose citizenship, for reasons to be given later, is suspended, and “those who are in actual military or naval service,” are disfranchised. Companies, however, and “other juristic persons” are entitled to the suffrage on similar conditions with individuals.[102]

But when we come to consider the duties of a citizen, we find peculiar conditions. The citizen of a Japanese city, town, or village, is under obligation to fill any honorary office to which he may be elected or appointed; and except for certain specified reasons he cannot decline official service without being “subjected to suspension of citizenship for from three to six years, together with an additional levy, during the same period, of from one-eighth to one-quarter more than his ordinary share of contribution to the city expenditure.” Here is compulsory “public spirit”! On the whole, citizenship seems to be regarded more as a duty than as a privilege; and the citizens best qualified to fill official positions of trust would find it much more difficult than in America to “keep out of politics.”

The administration of local affairs in city, town, or village is more or less centralized. In the cities the origination and the administration of the local laws devolves upon a “city council”; and in the towns and the villages, upon certain chiefs and their deputies.

A city council consists of a mayor, his deputy, and a certain number of honorary councilmen. The mayor is appointed directly by the Emperor from among three candidates previously selected by the city assembly, a body to be described later. The deputy-mayor and councilmen are elected by the city assembly. The councilmen hold office for four years, but half of them retire every two years. In the case of a very large city it is permissible to divide the city into Ku (wards), each with its own chief and deputy and even council and assembly. The functions of a city council include the preparation of business for the city assembly and the execution of the decisions of the assembly; the administration of the city revenue, and the carrying out of the budget voted by the assembly; and general superintendence of city affairs.

In towns or villages these duties devolve upon the mayors and deputies, who are elected by the town or village assembly from among the local citizens.

The city assembly, already mentioned, is a popular representative body. The number of members varies, in proportion to the population, from thirty to sixty; and the membership is divided into three classes, elected by three classes of voters, according to the amount of taxes paid by the electors to the city. The object of this division, copied from the Prussian system of local government, seems to be to give the highest tax-payers a power and a representation greater than what they might secure by mere proportion of numbers.[103]

The assemblymen hold office for six years, are eligible for re-election, and, like the councilmen, draw no salary, but receive “compensation for the actual expenses needed for the discharge of their duties.” The assemblymen go out in rotation every two years.

The principal matters to be decided by the city assembly, besides the election of certain city officials by secret ballot, are as follows: the making and altering of city by-laws and regulations; the voting of the budget and all matters involving expense; the modes of imposing and collecting all kinds of taxes; the incurring of a new liability or the relinquishment of an acquired right; the modes of management of city property and establishments; etc.

The constitution of a town or village assembly is also based upon the population, according to a fixed ratio. But in the grouping of electors according to the amount of taxes paid, there are only two classes. The rules, powers, and functions of a town or village assembly correspond exactly to those of the city assembly.

There are, in the case of towns and villages, two provisions which are not necessary in the case of cities. One provision prescribes a method by which two or more towns or villages, by mutual agreement and with the permission of the superintending authority, may form a union for the common administration of affairs that are common to them. The other provision prescribes that, by a town or village by-law, decided upon by the Gun council, “a small town or village may substitute for the town or village assembly a general meeting of all citizens having suffrage.” This appears to be an imitation, in theory at least, of the Anglo-Saxon town meeting and village assembly.

The privileges of local self-government are extended to all parts of the empire except Hokkaidō and Formosa, which are administered as “territories” by the central government. In Hokkaidō, moreover, a small measure of local administration has been granted, and this will be enlarged as rapidly as possible. But Japanese rule in Formosa is worthy of special consideration, because it is illustrative of what Japan can do in bringing enemies under her jurisdiction into harmony with her government. Japanese colonial government in Formosa may be called a success.

When Formosa[104] was ceded by China to Japan in 1895, it was well understood that the Japanese had no easy task in pacifying the Chinese, civilizing the savages, and thus bringing the beautiful isle, with its great resources, under cultivation and proper restraint. But, by a wise combination of military force and civil government, Japan has achieved a remarkable success.

At first, for a brief period, Formosan affairs were under a separate department of State, that of Colonization; but when administrative economy and reform were demanded, this department was abolished, and the Governor-General of Formosa, appointed by the Emperor upon recommendation of the Cabinet, was made directly responsible to the Cabinet. At first, of course, mistakes were made, and a great deal of incapacity and corruption manifested themselves in official circles. But, by a gradual weeding out of the incompetent and the dishonest, the civil service has been greatly improved. Especially in dealing with opium smoking and foot-binding among the Chinese has the Japanese government shown remarkable tact. And it has also encouraged local administration among the natives to the extent of employing them in subordinate positions where they can be trained for future usefulness.

The general policy of Japan in Formosa has been stated succinctly by Count Kabayama: “Subjugate it from one side by force of arms, and then confer on the subjugated portion the benefits of civil government.” It is the expressed determination to make Formosa, “body, soul, and spirit,” a part of their empire; and reliable testimony shows that they are making a success of their labors.[105]

We have now noticed the chief features of local self-government as applied in Japan to prefectures, counties, cities, towns, and villages. Although there are many enactments against which the democratic ideas of Americans would revolt, the system is certainly well adapted to the present needs and capabilities of Japan. It is an interesting fact that Japan’s political institutions have been developed, since the Restoration of 1868, from the top downward. In Japan the people are conservative, and the government is progressive; and the people are simply under the necessity of growing up to political privileges that are gradually bestowed upon them. And we may feel assured that, as the people show themselves capable of exercising power, their privileges will be gradually extended. We should not find fault with Japan, because in only a few years she has not leaped into the enjoyment of political privileges which the English and American people obtained only after centuries of slow and often bloody development; but we should congratulate Japan, because by peaceful measures she has gradually removed herself entirely out of the pale of Oriental absolutism, beyond even despotic Russia, and may be classed with her model, Germany.