Category Archives: 政党制度

Who decides the DPJ leadership?

2015年1月18日, 日本民主党(DPJ)将迎来建党(1998年)以来的第18次党主席选举。

选举方式:和自民党类似,也是采取地方选举人团投票(electoral college in local voting);中央国会议员(参议院和众议院)一人一票的原则。

投票具体过程: 自民党的总裁选举包含3个部分,党员,党友,国会议会

民主党的党主席选举同样包含3个部分,

  1. 党员/支持者(党费6000/年,2000/年);
  2. 地方自治体议员党员,
  3. 国会议员

Source: http://www.dpj.or.jp/article/byelaw_organization

http://www.dpj.or.jp/about/dpj/byelaw_presidential-election

*有关党员和supporters 的区别 source: http://www.dpj.or.jp/article/volunteer

最大的差别在于,党员可以参与党内事务的运营,活动,乃至于政策的讨论和决定。此外党员每个月会收到2期党的机关报

本次可以参加党主席投票的人选;一般党员/支持者(1年内注册和缴纳会费);地方议员党员/参众选举公认候选人;两院党员(2014年12月17日为基准)

投票的计算方法

  • 党员/支持者投票:按照每个都府县的票数,以d’Hondt method方式来计算。和自民党类似,按照当地人口数目来确定prefectural votes. 比如东京最多是36 points,最少的则只有2 points。
  • 地方议员:postal votes, 和自民党的2001年的electoral college 方式类似,每个县有3 points, 全国共计141 points, 同样是按照d’Hondt method来计算
  • 国会议员投票:党大会现场直接投票,公认候选人按照一人一个 point来计算,而国会议员每人2个points,
  • 前面3个部分的票数总计,如果没有获得半数以上的381票的话,那么进入决胜选,获得票数最多的前两位候选人进入final, 依旧是公认候选人一人一票,国会议员一人2票,票数最多者获胜。

source: DPJ homepage 2015年DPJ党主席选举投票流程

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

民主党与自民党的总裁选举的差异和类似

同:都是electoral college 和 Diet members (weighted) 同时投票;计算方法都是d’Hondt method;

差异:地方票,民主党的更加inclusive,民主党的是primary 和选举人团同一时间统一计算。类似于自民党的2001年和2012年的mixed pattern. 其次,自民党的新党章(2013)选举地方47票参与到决胜投票,这点DPJ目前还没有改革,依旧是看到权重较多的国会议员票来决定。

作为建立与1998年的政党,一开始就是采取相对inclusive的electorate. 而另一边自民党改革了几十年才实现。但是存在的问题就在于,tourist members, 是否真的实现了更加广泛的代表制度呢?

这里的tourist members, 指的是平常并不参与党务,但是在党主席投票时拥有投票权的人群。这个在DPJ的所谓supporters 最为明显。而且这次这个问题更加突出就在于,这是第一次地方票超过国会议员票重的党内选举。党内民主的三大标准,其一代表性和开放性openness and inclusivness, 其二集中性decentralization, 民主党都比自民党要做的出色(起码在规则制定上),但是是否更加开放的选择机制,就能带来更多激烈的选举,促进政党整体的发展呢?拭目以待18日的开票结果。

Advertisements

Back to Work (D3)-DPJ presidential election 2015

The result of 2012 party presidential election and the later revisions of the selection rules in 2013 revealed that a national favorite candidate from the party’s base in the prefectural branches is more likely to capture a final victory in the LDP. Now, we are observing the same trend in the biggest opposition party of Japan, the DPJ.

On Jan 18th, the DPJ will select its party leader among three candidates, Nagatuma, Hosono and Okada. All of them had served in the cabinet during the DPJ regime, and Okada was the Party leader in 2004~2005. What make this campaign interesting to watch are not just the tense competitions among three key players, but also more of how the selection rules work, who decide the leader. According to the party laws, DPJ applies an electoral-college way of involving local members and Diet members simultaneously in voting. The rank and file members, local supporters and the party’s local assembly members hold 495 points, almost 65% of the total 760 votes. It is the first presidential election that local votes exceed those lawmakers in the Diet. Similar to the LDP, a nationwide popular candidate would be more competitive to become the winner of this leadership contest. It is significant to notice that both parties(LDP & DPJ) are applying a broader inclusiveness to decide their leader.

The following link is a press conference of three candidates at JNPC.

 

Curtains fall: Japanese General election (2)

Curtains fall:  Japanese General election

还有几个小时, 最后的开票结果就将宣布自民党的前所未有的压倒性胜利了(或许,等着开票结果)。笔者,这里仅仅就4个方面来妄论本次众议院的选举,谈谈自己的看法。首先是何谓“师走选举”;其次为什么安倍偏偏要在这个时候提前解散国会? 再次,本次大选有何有趣之处?最后,日本政党政治今后何处去?
~~~~ 本文仅代表个人观点,若有不同意见,可以讨论,转载请署名。

2年前的“师走选举”,在民主党的总部,选举结果揭示版前稀稀落落的名字,那场冬夜的凄凉和寂寥之境,如今又再次上演。3年零3个月的民主党政权,除去那场大地震灾难,以及与中国交恶,3年3个首相的走马观花,前后不一的政策的印象,在如今看来似乎都没有发生过。而作为55年以来,第一个挑战成功自民党政权的第二大党来说,今后的戏也见不得多少可以有期待之处。那么先来看看什么是“师走选举”?

1,“师走选举”;
“师走”(しわす、shiwasu)是日语对于12月的称呼,而发生在12月的大选,也往往被媒体冠以“师走选举”的名号。而本次大选也是战后第六次“师走选举”。之前分别是1969年佐藤;1972年田中;1976年三木;1983年中曾根任内,2012年野田(民主党)
参考这里(http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/election/shugiin/2014/news2/20141213-OYT1T50085.html)
若“戏读”历史的话,会发现安倍的叔叔,佐藤荣作,以及安倍任内(2012/2014),自民党的选情是最好的,都是大胜。 这也不难理解当2006年安倍第一次当选自民党总裁的时候, 党内是大张旗鼓的宣传,把安倍家祖宗三代都给捧了一遍(详细参考2006年自民党党刊《自由民主》10月号)。这样的宣传态势,可谓前所未见。可惜安倍2007年因为各种原因撒手而去,直到2012年9月,卷土重来,在自民党总裁选举全国初选明显劣势,仅仅赢的6个选区的情况下,居然能够在决胜投票中逆转取胜对手。(这是自民党建党以来的第二次逆转)参考这里(http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASFK2601D_W2A920C1000000/)
安倍的光环还不止于此,他更是1955年自民党建党以来,第一位两度通过党内选举出任总裁的。(注,从78年以来,自民党开始采取党内投票的方式来选举党主席。)
说了这么多,是为了帮助理解安倍的强大气势,以及在选举中打出的对于安倍经济学的信心,以及那句“this is the only path” “この道しかない”背后的底气。

2, 为什么一定要这个时候大选?
既然安倍这么强势,安倍经济学如此炙热,为什么偏偏要提前2年大选呢?为什么不继续的稳定执政下去呢?(自民和公明联合政权,有295+31的议席)

这里原因很多,学界也有很多不同的声音和看法。

仅仅谈点个人的愚见。所谓全国投票,明在安倍经济学求民心,暗里志在修宪;借解散国会,明里继续削弱在野党,暗里也是为党内斗争付笔,总之,一切皆是为了谋求一个长期稳定的安倍政权。

10月31日日本央行关于继续金融放缓的消息出台, 而这里非常的蹊跷的在于政府方面的出席者甚至意外的提前退场。有人分析说,这表明安倍政府对于日银的举动事前不知情,事后也来不及调整,于是出现了解散大调整的步骤。最早“解散国会”的声音出现在电视台采访中。11月2日,第二次安倍内阁官房参与的饭岛熏(Ijima Isao)在电视体台节目里面提及此事。而就在此前,10月底,2名安倍内阁女性成员因涉嫌违反政治资金管理法以及选举法,相继辞职。而后任命的法相,继续被媒体曝出新闻,一时间,安倍内阁受到来自党内党外的压力和批评。但是,出现解散国会声音最强烈的时候,恰好是安倍外游,APEC首脑会谈,继而访问澳大利亚等国。一直到GDP的经济数据公布,安倍才正式就大选的事宜第一次表态。
那为什么说“暗藏”呢?安倍在宣布解散后,接受采访,明确表示倘若自民党拿不到一半议席,自己就下台。这个表示了他的强烈获胜的信心以及党内对于选举的准备。而在野党来说,完全是措手不及,所以才会出现批评安倍政府“无义”的声音。自公联合政权完全有可能获得3分之2左右的议席。而内阁成员相继出现丑闻,这让安倍于党内有任命责任,与其新一轮的党内权力斗争决定内阁成员,或者改组,不如推倒了重来,这对于安倍个人是一石二鸟(外游期间放出消息,旨在测水温)。 哪怕拿不到3分之2,安倍也将会再次披着领导自民党选举获胜的”政绩外衣”,党内无出其左右,这也都是在为他2015年9月再次初选总裁,铺平道路。

3,本次大选的看点
既然都在说自民党极有可能压倒性胜利,那还看什么呢?笔者认为,看点如下:
(1)大都市内,小党派的胜利;(2)政治家的世代交替以及一些新闻人物的选战;(3)94年选举制度变革的再考察。
第一点,主要是看维新和日共的表现。从2年前的众议院到去年的参院,这两党在大都市都有不错的表现。而这个也将会是今后日本政党政治的长期看点。
第二点,世代交替。安倍以及自民目前的有力议员们,大多是1993年期生,也就是在选举制度变革之际,进入到永田町的。而之前挑战成功的民主党的元老们,诸如小泽,海江田,菅直人等等,都在各自的选区面临种种问题;而本次也有若干的自民党元老宣布引退。他们之后的接班,将会非常有意思。
新闻人物,包括小渊优子,以及渡边喜美等人的选举情况。
第三点,如何评价94年的改革成果。今年10月的日本政治学会上, 94年的改革到底带来了哪些变化,尤其是与既有的理论预期相悖的现实,学者些曾有激烈的讨论。本次大选结束,从投票率,各地支持情况,到底是政党支持在上升,或者是否推动了政策导向的选举,都将会有一系列有趣的数据。而去近年来, 有研究指出过去的大家默认的自民党在农村部分支持稳定,而都市部分的支持弱的看法,已经过时,需要有所纠正。这些种种的疑惑,都有待本次开票结果。

4,将来会怎么样?

既然大选几乎没什么悬念了,那么思考下今后会怎样?
最大的担心莫过于,日本继续进一步保守化,走上修宪的道路。海内外媒体已经有各种叙述,这里不再累赘。笔者想强调一点,那就是3分之2是门槛,跨过去了确实非常非常的危险,但是如今的经济不景气,何时修,很大部分上,市场说了算。
笔者这里想说的是,日本政党政治,今后何处去? 小泽一郎先生那本“blueprint for a new japan ”《日本改造计划》(1993)里面提出了3个重要政策, 其一强化首相的权力,内阁与执政党一体化,弱化官僚;其二,引入小选举区制度,实现两党轮替,实现两党制;其三,国家正常化。
目前来看,第一点在民主党的任期进行了尝试,诸如国家战略局乃至于去官僚化,但是等到的结果却是大相径庭。值得庆幸的是,这个或许可以在安倍任期内有所期待。而所谓两党制,目前来看,还有很长的路要走。第三点,目前或许也会有突破。但是明显,目前的东亚局势,与此政策目标还相差甚远。
但是,20年过去了,哪怕是93年出生的那代人都有了投票权了,日本的政党政治还未有多少变化。今天是投票日,京都的一些大学生们特意准备了一个视频。内容很有趣,是与他们年纪相仿的香港学生们,呼吁日本年轻一代要踊跃起来,vote for the future。

拭目以待,到底今后的日本政治如何去呢?

(有待选举结果公布,会有进一步的分析)

Japan General Election kicks off~

Check out for the details of the campaign~

Japanese general election-2014

Each party launched its first campaign for the coming general election.

The ruling party, LDP, and the biggest opposition (so called…) party, DPJ, both chose Fukushima district as their first location to PR its policy and manifesto.

On the other side, JCP has been doing so well in big cities in recent elections, no wonder it chose Tokyo.

But all their party slogans/catch phrases  on the posters, are much the same as their manifesto, change/reform, but no solid contents or solution. Komeito, is the only one I found interesting enough to read and listen more. It also happens to be the party who owns a consistent policy on whether and how to increase the consumption tax.

 

 

 

contending theories of political party systems

typology of parties and party systems:

  1. Elite party
  2. mass party, 1960s, by Duverger
  3. cadre party
  4. catch-all party, 1960s, by Kirchherimer; revisited by Wolinetz, 1991;
  5. electoral professional party, by Panebianco
  6. New politics party, by Poguntke
  7. Cartel Party, by Katz and Mair 1995; restatement in 2009;
  8. business firm party, by Hopkin and Paolucci

Mainly, there exists four models of party: elite party, mass party, catch-all party, cartel party.

Katz and Mair: Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: the emergence of the Cartel Party. Party politics. 1995;1;5.

Still, I have found parties in Asian countries, hardly fit in this typology. About this “exceptionalism“, Alan Ware writes,

Despite some developments noted earlier, the study of party organizations remains largely’regionalized‘. One of the adverse consequences over the last four decades of this ‘regionalization‘ of research on organizational change has been that it has tended to lead to regional differences in organizational responses by parties being exaggerated or misconceived.

The utility of returning to the kind of comparative framework Epstein, following Duverger, was developing four decades ago is that it enables us to look at how parties operating under different rules of the game respond to changes in their environments that are common to all of them. This is not to argue against the continuation of ‘regionalist‘ studies, for they will surely remain an important source of our knowledge of party organizations.  Rather, it is to argue for supplementing such work by the development of analytic frameworks that recognize the significance of all factors that shape how all parties go about organizing their business in democracies. It is time to weaken the grip that ‘exceptionalism‘ and ‘regionalism’ have had on research into party structures.

*Alan Ware: Exceptionalism, Political Science and the Comparative Analysis of Political Parties. Government and Opposition. Vol. 46, no.4, pp.411-435,2011.

Further reading

the comparative study of political parties has been primarily a West European venture in which the other parties which researchers knew most about those in the United States-were sufficiently different for them to be walled off into a separate literature.

http://www.estuaries.olemiss.edu/courses/pol628/wolinetz02.pdf

(Here it comes to the unexplored Asia! )

 

 

論文ー政党研究理論

Exceptionalism political science and the comparative analysis of political parties. 

*Alan Ware

University of Oxford

Happy to see other scholars look into the same problem as I pointed out in my paper… But obviously he did a better job than me.

 In Europe a way of thinking about parties has developed that, while not truly ‘excetpionalist’, is certainly ‘regionalist’ in that it focuses on party change largely with respect to the operation of parties within just the European content.  Neither side- Americanist nor Europeanist- believes that it has that much to learn from the other. 

Conclusion

Despite some developments noted earlier, the study of party organizations remains largely ‘regionalized’. One of the adverse consequences over the last four decades of this ‘regionalization‘ of research on organizational change has been that it has been tended to lead to regional differences in organizational responses by parties being exaggerated or misconceived. For example, it is sometimes said European parties are ‘team sport’ whereas American parties are an ‘individual sport’, as if we were thereby dealing with very different kinds of entity. Some analytic frameworks, such as ‘ambition theory’, had specifically emphasized this aspect of American party politics, of course. Two points may be made about this. First, American party politics, like party politics elsewhere, is ”team sport’, and one cannot make sense of American politics over the last two decades if one sees it purely as a conflict involving individuals. … Secondly, the real point about team sport is that the individual players, and correspondingly limit the ability of a coach or manager to dictate precisely what happens in play.The utility of returning to the kind of comparative framework Epstein, following Duverger, was developing four decades ago is that it enables us to look at how parties operating under different rules of the game respond to changes in their environments that are common to all of them. This is not to argue against the continuation of ‘regionalist’ studies, fort they will surely remain an important source of our knowledge of party organizations. Rather, it is to argue for supplementing such work by the development of analytic frameworks that recognize the significance of all factors that shape how all parties go about organizing their business in democratic. It is time to weaken the grip that ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘regionalism’ have had on research into the party structure.   

* Government and Opposition, Vol.46, No.4, pp.411-435, 2011.

 

on the way of “politicians-led”

”Politicians-led” reforms

内閣人事局30日に発足 官房長官表明

 菅義偉官房長官は12日の政府・与党連絡会議で、各府省庁の幹部人事を一元管理する内閣人事局が今月30日に発足すると明らかにした。夏の人事から政治主導を目指した新制度の運用が始まる。内閣人事局長には杉田和博官房副長官を充てる。

http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASFS11002_R10C14A4MM0000/

内閣人事局、5月に設置 公務員制度改革法が成立 

2014/4/11 11:38

 省庁の幹部人事を一元管理する「内閣人事局」の新設を柱とする国家公務員制度改革関連法が11日の参院本会議で、与党と民主党などの賛成多数で可決、成立した。5月中に人事局を設置し、今夏から新たな人事制度を適用する。幹部人事に、首相官邸の意向がこれまでより反映しやすくなる。初代人事局長は杉田和博官房副長官が兼務する。

 内閣人事局は内閣官房に設置し、総務省や人事院が担ってきた人事関連の権限を移す。各省庁の給与ランク別の定員を決める「級別定数」や給与制度、採用などの業務を手掛ける。

 新制度の対象は審議官級以上の約600人。まず官房長官の下で内閣人事局が職員の適格性を審査し、幹部候補者の名簿をつくる。各閣僚はこの名簿に沿って人事案を作成し、首相や官房長官を交えた「任免協議」を経て最終決定する。

 首相が判断にかかわる人事を大幅に増やし、政権が重視する政策を進めやすくする。閣僚を補佐する「大臣補佐官」も新設。閣僚が希望すれば1人置けるようになる。

http://lex.juris.hokudai.ac.jp/csdemocracy/workingpapers/j_03.pdf

Prof. Yamaguchi on the failure of “politicians-led” during the DPJ administrations.