Ethan Scheiner, political scientist

In 2008, in the wake of the economic crisis, I was working on an article on Japanese politics with a focus on the prospects of the Japanese Communist Party and decided to pull in some quotes from an "academic expert."

After a bit of searching, I came up with the name of Ethan Sheiner, a Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. The interview was by e-mail.

__________________________

Liddell: There's a widespread belief that a "competitive" two-party system is the way towards greater representation, and Japan's electoral reforms of the 1990s were designed to facilitate this. But, unless reflecting class or race groups, doesn't a two-party system merely lead to the two parties becoming increasingly identical as they compete for uncommitted centrist voters in a few marginal areas?

Scheiner: I know that this is not what you mean, but we should be careful about what "greater representation" means. In many ways, the center is the most "representative." A majority made up of the left would prefer the center to anything to the right of the center. And a majority made up of the right would prefer the center to anything to the left of the center. That said, there is nothing about 2 party competition that says that it need lead to 2 parties that are identical and at the center. Few would say that the 2 parties in the US have been the same in recent years. And the long history of the 2 leading parties in the UK would certainly not suggest that they are the same. Much of the issue in Japan is that elections are not fundamentally about "issues," but rather are at least as much about things like pork barrel and especially local concerns. Japanese elections are usually less nationalized and more focused on each local election.

Liddell: Isn't a 2-party centrist stalemate actually less representative than a 1-party dominated system, like the old LDP, because at least a single dominant party can change the direction of legislation in the interests of the people?

Scheiner: I'm not sure why the 2 party system you suggest here is less representative than a 1 party system. But, and I think this is more important, the "stalemate" you are talking in Japan about is not a problem of a 2-party system. It is a problem of having 2 branches of the legislature, each with roughly equal power and each controlled by a different party.

Liddell: As Japan faces increasing economic stress and restructuring, what is the likelihood of social divisions developing and expressing themselves in political affiliation? I am thinking in particular about those within the full-time employment system and those on temporary contacts, as well as the growing gap between rich and poor.

Scheiner: LDP typically has had the support of many of the weaker groups - for example, rural areas that are so vulnerable to the global economy, small & medium sized businesses - for a long time. And it is such groups that are among the most hard hit by the changes in Japan today. The LDP continues to try to help them, but is limited by budget constraints. To answer your question more directly, there are important divisions especially within the LDP about whether to help the more modern parts of the economy and whether to support the rural areas, etc. that are so hard hit. The DPJ used to focus on supporting the former, but in recent years has been appealing more to the latter. It is possible that there could be a real split, leading to parties to break apart and reform along those lines. (Because of the nature of the splits I just noted, I don't see it being about the types - fulltime or contract - of employment.) I don't see either party appealing more to one of these groups than the other.

Liddell: Because of the similarities between the DPJ and the LDP, there is a possibility that they might merge later. Is this likely? And, in such a case, would the JCP benefit from occupying the position of largest de facto opposition (especially as the Komeito is likely to be within any ruling coalition)?

Scheiner: Most likely, if they merge, it won't be the entire DPJ with the entire LDP. Most likely, the groups would have more in common - for example, politicians with more of an urban, modern focus from each party coming together. I find it pretty unlikely that there would be just one giant DPJ+LDP party. Think of it this way: If the DPJ & LDP merge, that means that in many, many districts the new party will have 2 candidates that want to contest elections. They won't be satisfied staying in the same party. The 2-candidate competition in most districts will force 2 large-ish parties to continue to exist at the national level. So, I don't see the JCP occupying a role as the major opposition.

Liddell: The Japanese government seems to finance Japan's own exports to the USA by buying up dollars and doing all it can to keep the yen low despite the enormous trade deficit. Isn't this effectively a state of economic vassalage with Japan as producer and America as consumer (although it may even be in the best interests of such an overcrowded island)? Isn't this economic system supported politically in campaign donations from the big exporting corporations to the main parties who then support continuing this economic relationship?

Scheiner: At least as important as the support of big business to the LDP is the support of small & medium size business, agriculture, construction and the like - all things that are not internationally competitive. I don't see the LDP or Japanese government as simply working on behalf of big competitive business.