Governance Issues under Japan s MMM: Intraparty Divisions, Winner-Take-All Stakes, & Bicameralism 1 ETHAN SCHEINER UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
MMM instituted in House of Representatives (HR) in 1994 to address shortcomings in Japan s SNTV system 2 Lack of attention to issues Single-party dominance Fragmented opposition Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 1955-1993
Japan s MMM: Heavy focus on FPTP 300 SMDs (FPTP) 180 PR Can run in both For many candidates, victory in PR depends on success in SMD 2-incumbent districts not uncommon 3
System comes to focus on LDP and Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) 4 Parties Winning Seats 2 2.5 3 Candidates per SMD 1996 2000 2003 2005 2009 Year
LDP Dominates MMM Elections (96-05) 5 65 61.7 50 47.8 48.5 49.4 Seat Percentage 31.2 26.5 36.9 25 23.5 0 LDP Top Opponent LDP Top Opponent LDP Top Opponent LDP Top Opponent 1996 2000 2003 2005
2005 Marks Shift Toward Party Image as Decider of Elections Previously, focus on district candidates 2005 PM Koizumi (LDP) Faces LDP legislative opposition (especially in HC) Makes HR election referendum on himself & reform agenda 2005-on: 2-party convergence on policy 6 Image of ruling party as (in)competent/(in)capable of reform key determinant in HR election success
After Koizumi, LDP Image Takes Beating DPJ Defeats LDP in 2009 7
Party Image Remains Key: 2012 Massive DPJ Loss 8
Election Outcomes Due to Ruling Party Unpopularity Party in opposition not particularly popular LDP in 2012 had lost 2 million votes from 2009 Wins many SMDs because of divided opponents Ruling party loses because of image of incompetence (2009 & 2012) 9
Problems of Governance: Ruling Parties Can t Pass Legislation Centralization of government power, but Decline in amount of legislation submitted and passed (Kushida & Lipscy 2013) Decline in legislation across both parties, but most sharply under DPJ (2009-2012) 10 Lots of reasons for governance issues, but how about electoral rules?
(1) MMM Has Helped Maintain & Promote Intraparty Divisions More issue-oriented appeals, more open intraparty divisions Big increase in issue politics in countryside Japan s MMM makes unlikely party switching to create more coherent parties Large majorities for ruling party give opposition politicians few SMDs they can switch to Under MMM often 2 incumbents, so even opposition incumbents may have no open SMD with ruling party 11 Significant divisions within parties has made it hard to pass legislation
(2) FPTP Winner-Take-All Encourages Legislative Obstruction Parties have largely converged on policy Opposition focus in office: demonstrating incompetence of ruling party Cooperation discouraged E.g., LDP rejects grand coalition after 3/11 disaster unless immediately followed by new election 12
(3) Coordination Can Be Difficult Between HR & HC Powerful Upper House House of Councillors (HC) HR & HC electoral rules very different Different districting Different timing Districting leads to more rural flavor in HC Even when unified party control Periods of divided government Including 2010 when DPJ actually won popular vote! Opposition uses HC to obstruct Far less legislation passed 13
Extra slides follow 14
Significant Governance Issues in J Because 1. Multi-district system with disincentives for party switching permits significant intraparty divisions 2. Elections determined by image of ruling party s (in)competence create incentives for opposition to undercut government s legislation 3. Different rules and election timing makes coordination difficult between two houses of Diet (parliament) Lower House/House of Representatives (HR) Upper House/House of Councillors (HC) 15
Japan Looks Similar to Most FPTP Systems Effective Number of Candidates per SMD 16 3 2.89 2.93 Mean Effective Number of Candidates per SMD 2 1 1.74 2.59 2.64 2.68 2.4 2.41 0 U.S. U.K. India Canada Japan Italy Germany New Zealand Pure FPTP Unlinked Mixed Linked Mixed Drops to 2.26 in 2009
After 2009 HR Victory, DPJ Loses 2010 HC Election 17 LDP: 51 seats DPJ: 44 seats Komeito: 9 Your Party (Minna no Tou): 10 JCP: 3 SDPJ: 2 Others: 2
DPJ Wins More Votes But LDP Wins More Seats? 18 50 51 44 39 31.6 33.4 25 24.1 0 DPJ LDP DPJ LDP DPJ LDP PR Vote % Prefectural Candidate Vote % Seats (Raw Total)
DPJ Seats ones with many voters per seat LDP many 1 seat (rural) districts 19 with few voters per seat By number of seats available in district 1 2 3 5 Total Seats LDP Seats Won 21 12 5 1 39 DPJ Seats Won 8 12 6 2 28 Average Votes per Seat 606,833 743,706 1,123,727 1,219,553
Opposition uses HC to block HR LDP reform blocked by HC LDP members When LDP in power, DPJ used control over HC to censure LDP cabinet ministers, thus stopping Diet proceedings LDP does even more 2012 LDP pamphlet on its accomplishments in opposition (Endo, Pekkanen, and Reed 2013) 4. Cooperated in enacting 94% of bills helping disaster 5. Prevented DPJ fro enacting wasteful policies Many more government bills fail in divided houses (Thies & Yanai 2013) 20