|
Japan Consensus Building
The community is often demanding, but it is also
fragile,
because social ties are sustained not only through legal
norms and
common self-interest but also through the affective
patron-client
relationship. Open conflict poses a danger to the survival
of this
sort of community, and thus policy making requires
elaborate
consultation and consensus building, usually involving all
the
parties concerned. According to political scientist Lewis
Austin,
"everyone must be consulted informally, everyone must be
heard, but
not in such a way that the hearing of different opinions
develops
into opposition. The leader and his assistants `harmonize
opinion'... in advance, using go-betweens to avert the
confrontation of opposing forces." After a preliminary
agreement
among all has been reached, a formal meeting is held in
which the
agreed-upon policy will be proposed and adopted.
This process is called nemawashi (root trimming
or
binding), evoking the image of a gardener preparing a tree
or shrub
for transplanting, that is, a change in policy. Austin
points out
that a common Japanese verb meaning "to decide"
(matomeru)
literally means to gather or bring together. Decisions are
"the sum
of the contributions of all." Although consensus building
is, for
leaders, a time-consuming and emotionally exhausting
process, it is
necessary not only to promote group goals but also to
respect and
protect individual autonomy. In fact, the process
represents
reconciliation of the two. In the political system as a
whole, most
groups play some role in the nemawashi process.
Exceptions
are those groups or individuals, such as Koreans or other
minority
groups, who are viewed as outsiders.
Political leaders have to maintain solidarity and
harmony
within a single group and also secure the cooperation of
different
groups who are often in bitter conflict. Takotsubo
seikatsu
can promote destructive sectionalism. During World War II,
rivalry
between the Imperial Army and the Imperial Navy was so
intense that
it was nearly impossible to coordinate their strategic
operations.
In the postwar political system, prime ministers have
often been
unable to persuade different ministries, all
self-sufficient and
intensely jealous "kingdoms," to go along with reforms in
such
areas as trade liberalization. Observers such as
journalist Karel
G. van Wolferen, have concluded that Japan's political
system is
empty at the center, lacking real leadership or a locus of
responsibility: "Statecraft in Japan is quite different
from that
in the rest of Asia, Europe, and the Americas. For
centuries it has
entailed the preservation of a careful balance of
semiautonomous
groups that share power.... These semiautonomous
components, each
endowed with great discretionary powers, are not
represented in one
central ruling body." This view is probably exaggerated.
Leadership
in other countries, including the United States, has been
paralyzed
from time to time by powerful interest groups, and some
policies in
Japan requiring decisive leadership, such as the creation
of social
welfare and energy conservation policies in the 1970s and
the
privatization of state enterprises in the 1980s, have been
reasonably successful.
Data as of January 1994
|
