1. MEIJI CONSTITUTION

      QUESTIONS –

      2003, 2004, 2006 – Short Note: The position of the Emperor in the Meiji Constitution of 1889

      2005 – What was the general framework of the Meiji Constitution? How far was it centred on the Emperor?

      2007 – Was the Meiji constitution of 1889 a liberal document in the historical context? 2009 – Critically examine the position of the Emperor in the Constitution of 1889.

      2010 – How far do you agree with E.H. Norman’s view that the constitution of 1889 was “an instrument of inflexible absolutism”?

      NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION:

      The Restoration was a culmination of the tumultuous phase of political chaos of the 1860s. However, tensions arose again when the masses, especially the ex-samurais claimed that the Meiji government had become oligarchy dominated. Responding to the pressures of the anti- government movement (Minken) which were demanding popular rights, the Meiji government formed a body called Genroin (Senate) to draft a constitution. It was not before 1886 that the actual work for drafting the constitution began. Various drafts were prepared but it was only in 1889 that the Meiji Constitution had come into being.

      The task of drafting the constitution was assigned to Ito Hirobumi. Several councillors such as

      1. Yukichi went abroad to gain an insight into the other foreign constitutions and systems of governance. The Prussian Constitution was looked upon as a suitable model for emulation since the position of the emperor was well accommodated in that constitution, which in turn suited the needs of Japan. The constitution was formulated in a context of debate and discussion within the ruling oligarchy and emerging political associations. As J.W.Hall emphasizes, the constitution of 1889 was a vehicle forcarrying out a highly controlled process of political modernization. As we shall explore, it was a combination of Western political technology and traditional Japanese political ideas.

      FRAMEWORK OF THE MEIJI CONSTITUTION:

      While analysing the framework of the Meiji Constitution it is important to note some important measures which contributed to the final form the Government adopted.

      • The Charter Oath (1868) which had been issued had enshrined the intention of the new regime to establish deliberative assemblies- a platform for public
      • The Dajokan System or the Grand Council of the State was brought into effect following the restoration of imperial power in 1868 and was a highly centralised form of

      government. It consisted of the President, two vice-presidents and different Councillors who were mainly from the Satsuma and Choshu domains. It proved to be a very efficient form of revolutionary government. All the powers were concentrated in the hands of a small number of men who could implement their policies through their own ministries.

      • In 1871, the Dajokan was replaced by a new system which recognized the ‘Centre, Left and Right’ factions. Various ministries such as those for finance, foreign affairs, Public works and Home affairs were formed.
      • A further change was brought about in the year 1885, when the state introduced a Cabinet System headed by a Prime Minister, in which ministers remained responsible to the king.
      • An organized system of Civil Services examinations to recruit able officers was well in place by 1887.
      • By 1888 a Privy Council with life time imperial appointees was established to approve the Constitution and most of the apparatus of the government was in working order. After the promulgation of the Constitution, the Privy Council remained as the watch dog of autocratic
      • In 1889, the eleven-article Constitution known as the ‘Seitaisho’ was promulgated which had the following features –
      1. The Diet or the bicameral legislature was formed in 1889. It had two Houses- the House of Peers, whose members were generally from the imperial family and the other elite; and the popularly elected House of Representatives. The latter was kept in check by the However, the House of Representatives had a very important power-it could reject the budget prepared by the cabinet if it wanted to. E. O. Reischauer brings to our notice that over a period of time, the Diet succeeded in rapidly expanding its powers to an extent that some of the government leaders advocated for its abolishment. But ultimately the Japanese realized that this would be seen as a failure before the West on their part and thus the idea of abolishing it was dropped.
      2. The machinery of the government provided for by the Constitution remained highly bureaucratic and
      3. The Emperor was the central symbol of the new political structure and the Constitution was often presented as a gift to the nation from him to his people. The Emperor was to exercise all executive authorities, the individual ministers being directly responsible to
      4. The Emperor was to be served by a Ministry of Imperial The Emperor was to be advised by a Privy Council which was above the PM and the cabinet. The Emperor was declared commander in chief of the Army and Navy and was independent of civilian control. The Article IV of the Constitution implies that the law was above the king and therefore the government ought to be responsive to popular will. In addition to this, the Emperor had the right to

      suspend the Diet, to dissolve the Lower house and to issue ordinances when the Diet was not in session.

      1. Local administration was placed under the Home Ministry and Governors. If one examines it closely, it becomes clear that the decision makers were the ministers or the councillors or sanyo.
      2. In 1889, in the first election, only 1% of the population was qualified to
      3. The Imperial Diet and the electoral process ensured that the government responded to the demands of the people of
      • A very significant measure undertaken in due course was the broadening of the In 1900, the ballot was made secret and tax qualification was dropped to 10 yen. And by 1925, all adult males were eligible to vote.
      • The Constitution also guaranteed a series of popular rights including freedom of religion, of speech, publication, public meetings and The constitution turned out to be quite successful and maintained a balance between the various political parties. It met the demands of the opposition groups and did not alienate the conservative groups either.

      HISTORIOGRAPHY – Scholars differ in their opinion when they discuss the nature of the constitution.

      • H. NORMAN – Some historians assert that it was quite a liberal constitution- while others assert that it was quite conservative and a gift from the emperor to his subjects. The second view is endorsed by E. H. Norman. For him, this constitution, which was emanating from the emperor, was an inflexible instrument of absolutism. Only the emperor could initiate the amendments to the constitution. The Constitution also stated that the Emperor alone had direct control over the army and the navy. The emperor could even suspend or dissolve the Diet at any time and call for fresh elections. He elaborates that the constitution was conceived in a spirit of benevolent autocracy.
      • NATHANIEL PEFFER – Nathaniel Peffer argues along similar lines. According to him the constitution was only a slight transformation from the Tokugawa period where feudal lords ruled to now where militarists who were from the top families with imperial ties Therefore it may have had all the features of a modern constitution, yet this was only a veil as Japan still remained an oligarchy and embodied the spirit of the emperor at the top.
      • MARIUS JANSEN – Jansen presents a different view and highlights the role of the emperor as a legitimater and temporal head. He asserts that there was an element of ‘mystical absolutism’, that is to say that even though the constitution vested the emperor with executive, judicial and legislative powers, they were just temporal in nature and were exercised the PM, Cabinet, Judiciary and Diet. He was an aloof personality who

      didn’t participate in parliamentary discussions and was only a ceremonial head. According to Jansen, it was the ministers who enjoyed authoritarian power.

      • O.REISCHAUER – In this context, E. O. Reischauer throws light on the fact that even though everything was done in the name of the emperor, he never actually ruled. There was an ambiguity regarding the powers of the emperor in the constitution. He asserts that there was a contradiction of sorts. The Japanese leaders who framed the constitution combined extreme reverence for the emperor with a complete willingness to force decisions on him regardless of his own wishes. This curious dual attitude – a ‘combination of awesome respect for the emperor and callous manipulation of his person’ is embodied in the constitution of 1889. He further elaborates and states that on the surface it seems like the emperor had enjoyed all powers of the government.
      • GEORGE AKITA – According to Akita, the parliamentary form of government and the deliberative assemblies were not forced upon the government by public sentiment or the Popular Rights Movement. The government’s oligarchs were often more liberal than the political parties and had always wanted In 1889, the Popular Rights Movement was over and thus the Constitution was not to placate the Minken men.

      An appraisal of the Meiji Constitution of 1889 would be incomplete without taking into account certain drawbacks that it had within it. Since the constitution reinforced the Shinto belief which vested the king with divinity, the person of the emperor was consequently shrouded in various myths and dogmas. While it safeguarded the powers of the establishment and reinforced conservative political and social values, it was nonetheless a modern document and a major innovation in Japanese innovation

      However, in spite of its limitations, the constitution succeeded in uniting the country as a whole. John Hall calls it a ‘modern’ document because it was based on the Rule of Law. For a country which was entrenched in feudalism just a few decades before it came up with a liberal constitution was indeed a very remarkable feat. The constitution succeeding in placing Japan among the ‘civilized nations’ of the world-an aim which Japan had set to achieve right from the early days of the Restoration. In a nutshell, relatively speaking, the constitution of 1889 was quite liberal in nature when compared to the previous systems followed in the Tokugawa regime.