Is Japan Ripe for Democracy Assistance?

Freedom House rates Japan as “Free.” But reading yesterday’s New York Times, I can’t help but wonder if even free countries might be able to put a little democracy assistance to good use.

Since its founding in 1955, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has been out of power for all of 11 months. But this may be about to change. The party’s favorability rating has dropped to 26.8%. You might think the main opposition, the Democratic Party of Japan, would have reason to celebrate. But you’d be mistaken. Their approval rating is only 28.3%. Something is obviously wrong.

Both parties have multiple internal factions; The Times points out that neither party has anything resembling a coherent ideology. And Japanese voters may indeed want to “throw the bums out,” but they have little confidence in an alternative that is strikingly inexperienced in governing.

Both parties need to get back to basics, and find out what is important to voters in the here and now. It’s a safe bet the economy is on their minds. CNN reports that that the Japanese economy is at its worst since the end of World War II. So a winning Japanese party will need a good plan for that.

But no one is against economic recovery, so they’ll also each need a distinguishing message. This is where polling and focus groups could come in. Who’s tough on crime? Who will fight corruption? Who can work well with international partners? Who can promise their finance minister won’t be tipsy on “cold medicine” during overseas press conferences? On a more serious note, some Japanese want to engage in a public debate about whether or not to retain the country’s peace constitution, Article 9 of which renounces war as a sovereign right. Certainly this is something that should be subject to vigorous and meaningful public discourse.

And you can be sure that grassroots party activism is suffering when the most popular party can only summon the support of 28.3% of the people, so while we’re at it, the democracy assistance community might have something useful to say about energizing party grassroots.

Of course, this suggestion is a little tongue-in-cheek. But why throw all the D&G money at hopeless cases? Our friends might be able to use a little help, too.

Yushchenko Seeks New Constitution for Ukraine

The Eurasia Daily Monitor by the Jamestown Foundation has an interesting piece this morning on Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko initiating the process to draft a new constitution for Ukraine [the piece is not yet on their website - I will past the whole story behind the break and update with a link later].

Yesterday, Yushchenko called to session the National Constitution Council to consider a draft constitution he has prepared. President Yushchenko is seeking to roll back may of the constitutional amendment adopted in the wake of the Orange Revolution in 2003. Supporters of the president claim that the reforms were partly sought to prevent Yushchenko and the victors of the Orange Revolution from taking control of the strong presidential office and affecting real change in Ukraine. The Council will include many prominent politicians, including current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and recent former Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych, the person which Yushchenko beat out in the rerun of the presidnetial elections after the Orange Revolution in 2003. I’d be interested in the process by which the council considers, amends, and eventually approves a constitution. Given the strong divergent views of the president, prime minister, and former prime minister, it seems that there would be little agreement on a new political structure. The article notes that a draft is expected in approximately six months, in time for Yushchenko’s potential reelection campaign in 2010.

The changes noted in the piece include:

• the Presidential power to appoint the cabinet and PM, with parliamentary approval
• decentralization of authority to the regional governments
• the removal of immunity for members of parliament
• giving citizens the right to directly appeal to the Constitutional Court, directly submit draft laws to the parliament for consideration, and the ability to cancel laws via a referendum

I’m always a bit suspect of constitutional changes sought because the previous constitution prevents “real change from taking place.” While I believe that Yushchenko’s democratic bona fides are strong, some of the changes sought are worrying. While stripping of immunity may be a good reform, it could also be used by Yushchenko or future presidents to go after political rivals via the procuracy. That being said, the decentralization of the Ukrainian state may prove beneficial in terms shortening the lines of accountability between the voters and their elected officails. In short, I can’t say on whole whether this is a good or bad thing, but I can say this is likely to be very divisive. Click throught to read the whole piece from the Eurasia Daily Monitor Read the rest of this entry »

Progress in Nepal?

Tomorrow was supposed to see Nepal elect a constituent assembly. But the Maoist arm of the Communist Party of Nepal has refused to participate unless Prime Minister Koirala and the Seven Party Alliance (or six, or eight, depending on whom you ask) agree to (1) abolish the monarchy and (2) use closed-list proportional representation in one district. There seems to be consensus on the first point. Now there are stirrings in the SPA of a compromise on the electoral system: mixed-member proportional.

At an interaction held in the capital on Friday, Maoist chairman Prachanda had called for reviewing their agreements with the seven (now six) parties and the government. “We are also in favour of reviewing the agreements as there are still problems in their implementation,” KC said.

President of the Janamorcha Nepal Amik Sherchan said directives of the special session of the House could be given a constitutional status by incorporating a provision in the interim constitution that “Nepal is federal democratic republic state” to be implemented by the first meeting of the constituent assembly.

Sherchan said the Maoists could be convinced on MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system provided that the government agreed to fully implement all the agreements reached in the past.

The Maoists’ obsession with proportionality is counterintuitive given their rural base of support. One would expect them to benefit from a large nominal tier of small districts. (Indeed, that’s what we were blogging earlier this year.) Maybe they know something we don’t – that they don’t have pluralities in those districts, or that they have significant bases of support in the major towns and cities (they’re “packed” in Congress-speak). Or maybe nobody knows anything, and nobody wants to bank on the disproportionality that comes with districts any smaller than the whole country. That would make sense given the Maoists and one or two other groups have not yet faced an electoral contest.

But it doesn’t make sense for the Seven Party Alliance who’s refused to meet the Maoists’ demand – unless their refusal is grounded in something less tangible than a seat outcome (credible commitment to make the institutions work, respecting the electoral commission’s hard work to date).

Regionally disaggregated data is proving hard to find. IDEA has a helpful and recent survey of public opinion in Nepal. Here’s a summary of findings from the Nepali Times.

Here is Election Guide’s page on Nepal, but it doesn’t seem right. From what I can tell, a unicameral interim parliament is running the country according to an interim constitution. King Gyanendra and the upper house are sitting on the sidelines, and the military (generally supporting the monarchy) is quiet for now.

Here is the new electoral commission. Note how miffed they are at the Maoists’ intransigence; they’ve been laying the groundwork for an election, after all, with the help of IFES. Here’s the old EC website.

If anyone knows where to find regional data on party ID and public opinion, please leave a comment or drop an e-mail.