The Divided Diet
- 261
- 0
- 2
In Japan, the divided diet, the lower house is controlled by the ruling parties and the upper house is controlled by the opposition parties, has continued for a few years. Indeed, all Japanese politicians were elected by Japanese voters democratically. However, the divided diet has given our daily lives negative impacts.
For example, under Japanese Constitution, if each house makes other decisions about a bill, the lower house have to take a vote again and rally more than two-thirds affirmative votes to pass the bill. However, now in Japan, the ruling coalition parties don't occupy more than two-thirds of seats at the lower house.
Accordingly, it is very hard for the government or ruling parties to pass bills without cooperating with opposition parties. Sometimes they are forced to compromise excessively and policies tend to be populist.
In this regard, there are many points to be discussed. How do we prevent the divided diet from happening? What roles should each house take? Should we amend our Constitution and abolish the upper house? Should we give the lower house more power than the upper house?
Not only politicians but also all Japanese people discuss this issue seriously. However, because all of these points are controversial, it is very difficult to settle them under the divided diet. I think we are falling to an impasse.
For example, under Japanese Constitution, if each house makes other decisions about a bill, the lower house have to take a vote again and rally more than two-thirds affirmative votes to pass the bill. However, now in Japan, the ruling coalition parties don't occupy more than two-thirds of seats at the lower house.
Accordingly, it is very hard for the government or ruling parties to pass bills without cooperating with opposition parties. Sometimes they are forced to compromise excessively and policies tend to be populist.
In this regard, there are many points to be discussed. How do we prevent the divided diet from happening? What roles should each house take? Should we amend our Constitution and abolish the upper house? Should we give the lower house more power than the upper house?
Not only politicians but also all Japanese people discuss this issue seriously. However, because all of these points are controversial, it is very difficult to settle them under the divided diet. I think we are falling to an impasse.
In Japan, the divided diet, the lower house is controlled by the ruling parties(parties only appropriate if the government is made up of multiple parties, currently in japanese politics the DPJ are in power ONE PARTY, for an example of parties see Australian Politics where the government in power is a minority one; they are in power because they are supported by smaller PARTIES.)and the upper house is controlled by the opposition parties(see below - opposition is sufficient), has continued this way for a few years. (see below for a more natural sentence)In Japan the divided diet is broken up into the lower and upper house. The upper house is controlled by the opposition, while the lower is controlled by the ruling party.
* be careful when writing about politics it's very difficult.
I'm not totally 'in the loop' re: Japanese politics, so if you were trying to say something else let me know and I'll correct that.
Indeed, all Japanese politicians were (are) elected by Japanese voters democratically.
good.
However, the divided diet has given our daily lives negative impacts. had a negative impact on our daily lives.
For example, under Japanese Constitution, if each house makes other different decisions about a bill, the lower house have to take a vote again and rally more than two-thirds affirmative votes to pass the bill. two-thirds of voters into the affirmative to pass the bill.
However, now in Japan (in Japan now), the ruling coalition parties don't occupy more than two-thirds of seats at in the lower house.
In Japan now sounds more natural.
Accordingly (So), it is very hard for the government or ruling parties(party)See earlier* to pass bills without *cooperating with *opposition parties. *cooperation from the opposing parties.*
In this regard, there are many points to be discussed. :Use colons [ : ] when making lists
How do we prevent the a divided diet from happening?
I think we are falling to an impasse. (careful, I can think of no instance where I've ever come across "falling to...". Falling from, Falling towards = yes. but never "falling to..." at an impasse.
In Japan, the divided diet, in which the lower house is controlled by the ruling party and the upper house is controlled by the opposition partiy, has continued for a few years.
For example, under the Japanese Constitution, if each house makes different decision about a bill, the lower house has to take a vote again and rally more than two-thirds affirmative votes to pass the bill.
What roles should each house have?
I think we've reached to an impasse.
To be fair, the what you described is the whole point of having a bicameralism system: so that laws would be difficult, there would be procedural hurdles, and there would be compromises, and enshrined in the Constitution which is ratified by a democratically elected diet. ;)
Obviously there are pros and cons to that and the desirability of bicameralism is something that has to be determined based on empirical and policy reasons.
In a well functioning democracy, protection of the minority is extremely important. The idea that because current ruling party is democratically elected, it should have free rein over whatever it wants at the complete disregard of minority opinions is, in my opinion, slightly absurd.
The determination of how much the current system protects those rights and how much it is costing the efficiency is something I personally have no clue about, and something to be resolved by the people.