Constant Mutual Rejection: How the US Election Highlights Weaknesses in the 2-Party System

Published in Nishinippon Shimbun
(Japan) on 8 November 2020
by Nagata Ken (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by D Baker. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
In Japan, we say, “three heads are better than two.” The idea is that, even if one ordinary person can't come up with a good idea, ideas can be produced with the cooperation of two others, and one can produce ideas as inspired as any that could be put forward by the Buddhist symbol of wisdom, Monju Bosatsu.

The political system, or more formally, parliamentary democracy, is often thought to embody the “three heads are better than two” concept. It is better to think in big groups than to do so as an individual. The Charter Oath promulgated at the time of the Meiji Restoration stated, “Deliberative assemblies shall be widely established and all matters decided by open discussion,” and was the starting point of Japan's parliamentary democracy.

There is a stroke of genius in the idea of discussion specifically among three people. If A and B disagree, their positions are likely to run parallel to each other without touching, resulting in an argument. But the addition of C means that good points raised by both sides can be adopted, and it becomes possible to find a realistic conclusion that is not pulled toward either extreme.

Getting back to the point, I couldn't help but feel the U.S. election highlighted the shortcomings of the two-party system. It is notable that rather than three heads, there were just two.

Confrontation between the conservative Republican Party and the liberal Democratic Party is central to U.S. politics. Various conflicting values exist when it comes to issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and gun control in American society. These disagreements are reflected in the antagonism between the Republican and Democratic parties.

In his term of office, President Donald Trump has stoked social discord and aggravated the problem posed when conflicting values are imposed on the confrontation between the two major parties. Politicians from both parties, as well as their supporters, openly attack each other without listening to the opposing side.

The chaos over mail-in ballots was also due to both parties failing to agree in advance on the fundamental rules of casting and counting votes. There are fears that supporters who refuse to accept the election results will riot.

The intensification of conflict between the two major parties alongside the worsening social divisions is putting American society at risk.

A similar phenomenon can be seen even in Japanese politics, which has come to be oriented toward a two-party system.

In 2009, when the Democratic Party of Japan came to power, it was expected that there would be a revitalization of politics led by the two major parties, the Liberal Democratic Party and Democratic Party of Japan. However, the political situation that has emerged after the subsequent Liberal Democratic Party administration is one in which the Liberal Democratic Party and Democratic Party of Japan and its affiliated opposition parties completely reject each other, which has normalized the absence of constructive discussion.

By engaging in debate that is obsessed with winners and losers, participants prioritize attacking their opponents for running a “nightmarish administration” and so on, and in doing so, lose the opportunity to discuss ideas and find the best solution. It becomes impossible to admit failure, which can have adverse effects such as the stubborn enactment of strange policies carried out to the end, as in the case of the government-sponsored mask policy that became known as the “abe-no-mask.”*

The public debate about how well the government is doing has become senselessly aggressive, due in part to the unique nature of expressing opinions online. Political factions and divisions in society agitate each other, and eventually the conflict leads to the breakdown of society. This is a concern for all of us, because what happens in the United States often happens in Japan as well.

Next year, it will be a quarter of a century since the two-party system’s single-member districts were introduced into Japan’s House of Representatives election in 1996. How can we apply the ancient wisdom handed down to us that “three heads are better than two” to modern Japanese politics? The time has come for us to ask this question.

*Editor’s Note: In August, former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stopped wearing his government-sponsored mask, which faced criticism for its poor quality and slow delivery to the public, a mask which became known as the “Abenomask.”


「互いの全否定」日本でも 米大統領選、二大政党制の欠点浮き彫り
2020/11/8

 「三人寄れば文殊(もんじゅ)の知恵」ということわざがある。説明することもないが「凡人が一人で考えて良い案が出なくても、三人集まって考えれば、知恵の象徴である文殊菩薩(ぼさつ)と同じくらい素晴らしいアイデアが浮かぶ」というような意味だ。

 議会制民主主義などという堅苦しい言葉で表現される政治体制も、つまるところはこの「三人寄れば文殊の知恵」をシステム化したものではないか、と考えることがある。一人より大勢で案じた方がいい。明治維新で出された五箇条の御誓文の「万機公論に決すべし(全てを広く話し合って決めよう)」が日本の議会制民主主義の出発点だ。

 この「三人寄れば」の「三人」というのがまた絶妙である。意見の異なるAとBでは議論が平行線をたどりがちで、しまいにはけんかになる。三人目のCがいるから、双方の主張の良いところを取り入れ、極端に走らない現実的な結論を見つけることができる。
   ◇    ◇
 話が飛ぶようだが、今回の米国の大統領選をウオッチしていると、「三人」でなく「二人」であること-つまり「二大政党制」の欠点が浮き彫りになったように思えて仕方がない。

 米国政治は保守的な共和党とリベラルな民主党の二大政党の対立が軸だ。米国社会には妊娠中絶、同性婚、銃規制などを巡ってさまざまな価値観の対立が存在する。こうした対立がそのまま共和、民主両党の対立に投影されている。

 社会の対立をあおるトランプ大統領の1期目で「価値観の対立=二大政党の対立」は一層激しくなった。共和、民主両党の政治家や支持者は相手の言うことを聞こうとせず、嫌悪感をあらわに攻撃するだけだ。

 郵便投票を巡る混乱も、投開票の基本的ルールについてさえ両党で事前に合意できなかったのが原因だ。結果を認めない支持者による暴動も懸念されている。二大政党の対立激化と、それと相まって深刻化する国民の分断が、米国社会を危機にさらしている。
   ◇    ◇
 二大政党制を志向してきた日本の政治でも、同じような現象が見られる。

 2009年に民主党による政権交代が実現し、自民党と民主党の二大政党を軸とする政治の活性化が期待された。しかしその後の自民党政権復活を経た政治の現状を見れば、自民党と民主党系の野党による「お互いの全否定」に陥り、建設的な議論がなされない状況が常態化している。

 勝ち負けにこだわる議論では「悪夢のような政権」などと相手を攻撃することが優先され、案を持ち寄って最適解を探す機運が失われる。失敗を認める余裕もなくなり、妙な政策(例えばアベノマスク)も意地になって最後まで遂行してしまうような弊害も起きる。

 ネット世論の特性もあって、政権の評価を巡る国民間の議論はむやみに攻撃的になり、殺伐としてきた。政治の党派対立と国民の分断が相乗効果で進み、やがては社会を壊す-。米国で起きることはしばしば日本でも起きるから困る。
 
二大政党制を志向する小選挙区導入による最初の衆院選(1996年)から来年で四半世紀。「三人寄れば」という古人の知恵を日本政治に生かすにはどうすればよいか。再検討の時期に来ているのではないか。
 (特別論説委員・永田健)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: US against Venezuela: No Lawless Zone

Pakistan: Hardening the Frontier

Poland: Why the America We Knew Is Gone*

Israel: It Is Time To Confront the Muslim Brotherhood

Singapore: Trump’s Unconventional Diplomacy Will Come at High Cost for US Partners

Topics

Spain: Neocolonialism and Ethnocides

Jordan: America between Israel’s Burdens and Arabs’ Benefits

Turkey: Will Trump’s 28 Points Be Enough for Ukrainian Sovereignty?

Pakistan: Hardening the Frontier

Singapore: Trump’s Unconventional Diplomacy Will Come at High Cost for US Partners

Pakistan: Setting the World on Fire

Pakistan: A Lone Gunman Sparks Trump’s War on Legal Immigrants

Israel: Trump’s Truancy

Related Articles

Turkey: Will Trump’s 28 Points Be Enough for Ukrainian Sovereignty?

Pakistan: Hardening the Frontier

Singapore: Trump’s Unconventional Diplomacy Will Come at High Cost for US Partners

Pakistan: Setting the World on Fire

Pakistan: A Lone Gunman Sparks Trump’s War on Legal Immigrants