QUESTION: Trace the Popular Rights Movement in the Meiji Period. What was its impact?
ANSWER: After the Meiji Restoration, which restored direct political power to the emperor, Japan underwent a period of sweeping political and social reform and westernization which was aimed at strengthening Japan, to the level of the nations of the Western world. The Meiji constitution of 1889 marked the culmination of this modernization process, which resulted in the establishment of the first parliamentary government in Japan. The Meiji constitution or the declaration by the Meiji government that it would promulgate a constitution in 1889 had marked an end to the Popular Rights Movement that had emerged in Japan during the 1870s.
Peter Duus has argued that the 1870s were not only marked by a breakthrough to modernity but also by vocal anti-government criticism, sometimes coupled with outbursts of political violence. Majority of this opposition had come from peasants in the countryside or in some cases violent outbursts by members of the ex-samurai class, who believed that the Meiji oligarchy had betrayed the original aims of the restoration. It was a new form of peaceful political protest relying on political agitation, local organization, journalistic attacks and direct petition to the central government that had emerged by the mid-1870s. According to Jansen, this liberal opposition can be traced back to the splintering of the original leadership group in October 1873. Antagonized by Han favoritism, the monopoly of the Satsuma-Chosu monopoly of power and by difference of opinion regarding a military expedition to Korea had led a dissident minority group to break away from this Meiji oligarchy to form the first political association in Japan. The leaders of this movement were Itagaki and Goto, who deeply impressed by the western techniques of political opposition in the form of constitutional agitation and through political parties had given rise to a new era in Japanese politics. the organization formed by these leaders- Aikokukoto- and its demand for a representative assembly had thrown a liberal challenge to the incumbent leadership for the first time and signaled the opening of what became a decade long campaign known as the Popular Rights Movement.
Emphasizing on liberty, equality and the right to elect government officials, the Popular Rights movement brought together at various points of time former Restoration leaders and intellectuals, urbanites and villagers, shizoku and wealthy commoners, peasants and intellectuals- all of whom shared an interest in opposing oligarchic rule. It has been argued that Itagaki and Goto had a public and factional motive in launching such a movement as they wanted to oppose the Satsuma-Chosu monopolization of power. But those, who backed their demands for freedom and popular rights reflected a much wider spectrum. There were some, who believed that a constitutional assembly was needed for the sake of national unity in the face of foreign threat; while others who believed that a parliament’s function would be to control the emperor’s advisers and not limit the authority of Emperor and it was the more radically minded, who saw the movement as a means to achieve and establish social justice within Japan. Jansen has argued that some of these leaders believed that it was the establishment of representative institutions, which were essential to ensure the political progress of the country. It was only when people were entrusted with political rights that they could not only provide a check to the arbitrary manner of governance of the oligarchy but they would also willingly assume the many duties of citizenship, manifest a new unity of purpose and develop the spirit of enterprise that was known to exist among the populations of fully civilized countries.
Itagaki spearheaded the movement in its early phase. In 1874, he formed ‘Risshisha’, a local political association in Tosa that took upon itself the task of popularizing liberal thought. It began to agitate for a national assembly, lowering of taxes and revision of the unequal treaties. They also began to spread the theory of natural rights – right to life, liberty and property- that all human beings were entitled to and rights that no one could take away. To educate members of this new political philosophy, the association sponsored public lectures and talks that introduced the thought of Locke, Mills, Rousseau and Bentham. Duus has argued that during its initial phase, this movement was neither democratic nor popular in nature. It was recruited and led mainly by former samurai- mainly from Tosa. Thus, Risshisha was essentially concerned about helping local samurai in Tosa adjust to changing economic conditions as it did at arousing their political consciousness. These leaders had very little confidence in the wisdom of the common people or in their ability to participate in politics. When they spoke of people they essentially meant the ex-samurai class and the well-to-do peasants, who had formed the village elite in the pre-Restoration times.
However, a change in this movement came towards the end of the decade when an increasing number of local notables began to take up this cause. This was the more ‘popular’ phase of the movement that saw participation by men of all social classes, journalists, teachers, peasants and common labourers. The turning point had come about in 1879 when Sakurai Shizuka published an appeal in which he denounced the failure of the oligarchy to institute representative institutions and appealed to the prefectural assemblies and the common people to join him in a new campaign. The response was highly positive and overwhelming as an increasing number of petitions were written to the government to initiate such changes. With the national petition campaign of 1879, the initiative within the movement had passed to hundreds of local political societies. Prominent among these societies was Sekiyosha founded by Kono. This society also took up the cause of popular rights and representative government, but unlike Risshisha, its membership was not restricted only to the Samurai class. It welcomed all people, who supported the society’s goals, irrespective of class, wealth or station. Moreover, its members did not confine themselves to discussing political issues alone but also studied political science, economics, history and even natural sciences. Kono also established an academy known as Seidokan that produced students imbued with ideas of liberty, equality and democracy, who then took the lead in setting up popular rights organizations in nearby villages. As a result of these societies, the ignorant and unlearned sections of society were able to eagerly debate the shape and substance of Japan’s constitution, when its promulgation was declared in 1881 by the Meiji oligarchy.
Both Jansen and Duus have tried to explain the forces that motivated the local notable into joining the movement. Duus has argued that the involvement of the well-to-do sections in the countryside came at a time when the countryside had witnessed a period of prosperity, which strengthened the confidence of the local rural elite and generated leisure time and capital that could be diverted to politics. Jansen, however, has seen their participation as a natural outcome of the central government’s attempts to strengthen its control over the countryside. As a result most of the functions that were performed by the village elite were now performed by the state bureaucracy. Thus, it was no surprise that these elements were attracted to the concept of natural rights as it not only acted as a guarantee of private wealth but political participation as well. Moreover, the government had opened up limited participation in the political process at the grass root level by establishing elected prefectural assemblies. However, this far from satisfying the masses had further given rise to popular discontent as these assemblies only had the right to discuss but not initiate legislation or review the annual budget. Irokawa Daikichi has also argued that one should focus on the cultural dimension of the political unrest as well. He argued that political activism at the village level expressed the desire of Japan’s new citizens to transcend the narrow world of feudal culture. Intellectually and socially, the Popular Rights Movement opened up avenues of activity long denied to commoners.
Intellectuals also played an instrumental role in publicizing natural rights and kindling enthusiasm for political reform. Nakamura Masanao and Fukuzawa Yukichi were pioneers of the Meiji enlightenment, whose translations and essays introduced western culture and political institutions to Japanese. But at the same time there were a large number of journalists and amateur orators, who also played an active role in spreading the message of this movement to a large number of people. Numa was a leading pioneer in this respect, who ran a Tokyo based paper, which was used as a forum for the constitutional movement. A number of societies led by such intellectuals like the Omei society had come up that promoted discussions and debates of political issues. Moreover, its members also travelled to villages and lectured at temples, schools, storehouses etc.
The Popular Rights Movement seems to have splintered after October 1881. It was this period that witnessed four distinct developments: the growth of political parties; agitation for greater power in local and prefectural government; rise of an insurrectionist faction and the emergence of a radical populist movement. However, none enjoyed more than temporary success and each was suppressed or asked to disband even before the constitution was promulgated. The formation of political parties started taking place after the oligarchy had announced its decision to frame a constitution by 1889. The first of such parties was the Liberal party led by Itagaki. Although, this party had been able to create a party platform, a strong support base, a permanent secretariat and even publish a newspaper, it probably did more to hinder the constitutional movement than to oppose the oligarchic rule. The monopolization of the high posts within the party by the Tosa men had given rise to a great deal of factionalism within the party. Moreover, Itagaki had emerged as a leader, who was more interested in pursuing his own interests than that of the movement. His absence during the rise of radical groups in the name of his party greatly weakened the party. Finally, the party was more interested in thwarting the efforts of the Progressive party led by Okuma than to oppose the government. According to Duus, the main reason behind the failure of this party was its inability to check the radical forces within it which taking advantage of the worsening situation in the countryside encouraged protests against the state. This in turn had invited government repression that broke the back of the party as it was not in a position to deal with this sort of government coercion. The ‘Fukushima’ incident is said to have marked the decline of not only the Liberal party but also of the People’s Rights Movement. Moreover, many of the party leaders could also be bought by the government. The party eventually broke up in 1884. The second party that was formed during this period was the Progressive Party that believed in the gradual and peaceful agitation for constitutional reforms. However, as the political initiative on the constitutional question had shifted into the hands of the government, neither of the parties were able to flourish. An increasing number of people had started to see the futility of putting public pressure on a government that was least inclined to heed it. All this had a significant adverse affect on the popular support base of these parties.
The last years of the movement saw violent opposition to the Meiji government. These were of two kinds: (1) insurrection plots that aimed at avenging the government repression used against the Liberal party demonstrators at ‘Fukushima’; the most notable instance of this was the Kabasan uprising; and (2) peasant uprisings as the situation in the countryside, particularly of the peasants had worsened as a result of the government’s deflationary policy. The former category of movements were ill-conceived, secretive in nature and completely isolated from the pressing needs of the people. As a result, they never had a popular support base or the organizational capacity to threaten the oligarchy. The peasant insurrections, in particular, the Chichibu rebellion of 1884 garnered a great deal of support from the peasantry in the countryside as it was centered around the issue of debt relief. Despite the initial success of this uprising, it was completely suppressed in light of massive government repression and its ability to buy some of the leaders of this uprising. It was with the suppression of this movement and the voluntary dissolution of the Liberal party that the Popular Rights Movement came to an end.
The Popular Rights Movement had a significant impact on Japanese society and polity. The most obvious consequence was that it had forced the government to agree to a constitutional system. In face of the rising tide of this popular movement for constitutional agitation the government had realized that a certain degree of democratization would have to be brought into the system. It is for this reason that the government had declared in 1881 that it would issue a constitution in 1889. Moreover, the government officials themselves were forced to discuss and deliberate regarding the nature of the constitution. The most liberal view was put forward by Okuma, who advocated a British style parliamentary system in which the government would be formed by the majority party. He wrote, that the constitutional government is party government and the struggle between parties are the struggle of principles. This, however, was naturally rejected by the oligarchy.
Almost diametrically opposed to this was the view of Iwakura, an influential noble who belonged to the core group of Meiji leaders. He and Inoue Kowashi argued that in Japan, unlike Britain there was no tradition of political parties and they would not be successful. Therefore, the Emperor should appoint and dismiss the Cabinet independent of a parliamentary majority. Such views were supported by influential newspapers.
However, Jansen has argued that declaration of the constitution should not be seen as the highmark of the movement. He argued that although the Meiji oligarchy issued a constitution, it was not able to establish a true democratic polity. The constitution, was the oligarchic response to the existing liberal tradition in Japan and was meant to be an instrument in the hand of the oligarchy to suppress this liberal tradition. If one looks at the provisions of the constitution it would become amply clear that only limited representation was provided to political parties in the diet, where only the lower house could be composed by a popular mandate. However, the franchise was restricted only to a small number of people as it was based on the tax paying ability of the people and thus, it was not a representative institution at all. Moreover, the lower house of the diet, which was the only organ of the government in which the political parties could have an effective voice had very limited powers. It had no control over the Cabinet; could not interfere in dynastic affairs; didn’t have the power to declare war, conclude peace or treaties nor could it initiate any amendment in the constitution. Moreover, all control over the government affairs were vested in the oligarchy that was spread over the House of Peers, the cabinet, the privy council and the Genro. Thus, the constitution was in fact an inflexible instrument of absolutism. It was a strait jacket for democratic movements, as at every level, the position, privileges and authority of the oligarch was safeguarded. According to Jansen, it was only in the first few decades of the 20th century that political parties gained a share of ministerial powers and the immediate impact of the Popular Rights’ Movement had only led to an even more authoritarian government.
According to Jansen, the limitation of the Popular Rights’ Movement came from the leadership. It was weak and compromising that did not have the ability to rise above their own vested interests to guide the various factions that had now become a part of the movement. Moreover, the factionalism within the various organizations had also limited or restricted its effectiveness. However, the greatest weakness of the liberal movement during this period was the acceptance of imperial authority as the fountain of all legitimate political authority. The declaration by the liberal leaders that power should be shared by the Emperor and the people was an ideological commitment to the sanctity of the position of the Emperor. Thus, when the Meiji oligarchy declared that the Emperor had issued an ordinance that it would declare a new constitution it had come as a severe blow to the movement.
The Popular Rights’ Movement had also exposed the authoritarian nature of the Meiji oligarchy and how far they would go to curb any dissent against their authority. Apart from resorting to ruthless coercion and bribery, a number of other repressive measures were used like the Peace Preservation Law (1887) that empowered the police to ban any person they suspected of creating disturbances against the government; strict restrictions were imposed on the press that required the newspapers’ editors to be registered, all comment to be signed and for the editor to be held responsible for any anti-government statement and finally such provisions were extended to cover political parties and associations as well. As the movement gained momentum, the number of arrests and seizures by the government also went on increasing.
Duus has also argued that the Popular Rights’ Movement had given rise to a counter conservative reaction. The proponents of these counter currents feared the influx of radical new ideas- natural rights, equality, legitimacy of rebellion-that undermined respect for constituted authority. Nostalgic for the virtues of discipline, obedience and order so central to pre-Restoration attitudes, a new group of conservative intellectuals began to call for a return to the values and morality of the old society. This undercurrent was characterized by a great deal of anti-western attitude and by a desire for the revival of Confucian-style moral education. It was this conservative reaction that provided intellectual justification for the increasing static policies of the government.
However, Duus has also tried to say that one should not ignore the positive aspects of this movement. He argued that one of the most significant long-term impacts of this movement was that it had established a new tradition of legitimate political dissent. Moreover, this movement had given rise to a great deal of political consciousness among the masses. It had provided an opportunity to the common man to protest against the government in a legitimate manner; something that had been denied to them for a long time. In pre-Restoration times, even well-to-do peasants rarely had concerned themselves with events beyond the village or domain boundaries. It was this emergence of the Popular Rights Movement with a national organization cutting across local provincialism that represented a broadening of political consciousness, which was a complete departure from traditional politics. It also marked the awakening of a new kind of nationalist sentiment, which was necessary to make the country stronger. Finally, Duus has argued, many veterans of the movement went on to become professional party politicians after the opening of the Diet in the 1890s, continuing the struggle there against the government oligarchy.
Thus, to conclude one can see that despite the modernization and progress of Japan following the overthrow of the Bakuhan system, there was a great deal of opposition to the Meiji oligarchy. One such opposition had come from the liberal framework that had emerged in Japan. Through peaceful protests, petitions, meetings and newspapers they had popularized and demanded for popular rights and a constitutional system, thereby, galvanizing almost every section of the society against the oligarchy. However, while, this movement may have marked a new beginning in the history of Japanese politics as it laid the groundwork for continuing opposition to an authoritarian system, it was unable to achieve anything significantly tangible. The Oligarchs had no intention of undermining their own authority or conceding large power or rights to the people. Moreover, the rise of a conservative counter-reaction to the movement gave legitimacy to the government absolutism, which was reflected in the Constitution of 1889, for which the movement had been launched.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
· The Emergence of Meiji Japan- M. Jansen
· The Rise of Modern Japan- Peter Duus
· The Emergence of Modern Japan- EH Norman