This paper wants to compare the parliamentary systems of Japan and Germany, especially
the structure of the governments, the Diet, and the Bundestag. In our paper we will
answer the following questions: Why can both countries be compared? What historical prerequisites
led to the recent political systems? How do the respective parts of parliaments
and governmental institutions work together? Therefore, we want to concentrate on the
question, where there are similarities in the political procedures and where these ones differ?
Several reasons make both countries comparable. In this regard, our first item gives an
overview over 130 years of a Japanese-German relationship, in which many parallel historical
developments and treaties occurred. A description of the constitutional developments
(item 3) shows that the Japanese Constitution of 1890 adopted general provisions
(especially provisions for the emperor and the parliament) from the German Constitution of
1871. In addition, both postwar Constitutions were strongly influenced by the United
States’ occupation politics, which established a parliamentary democracy in both countries.
All of these are necessary fundamentals to show that both systems can be compared because
of these several similar, historical, and political developments. Our fourth item compares
the parliamentary systems today. Within the concluding remarks we will point out the
differences and the similarities, both systems share or rather divide from each other. Japan and Germany can look back upon 130 years of a more or less deep relationship.
Sure, there are some differences within this old official Japanese-German relationship, and
there are parallels with other states. But despite of all possible relativity, the degree of the
Japanese-German similarity is succinct, and it is possible to discover parallels between
certain historical developments in Japan and developments in Germany. The official relations
began on January, 24th 1861 when the Prussian East Asian Delegation under the Duke
Friedrich zu Eulenburg and the Japanese Shōgunat completed the “Freundschafts-, Handels-,
und Schiffahrtsvertrag” (Friendship, Trade-, and Navigation-Treaty). [...]
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Japanese-German relationship
3. Constitutional Developments
3.a. Meiji Constitution and Germany’s Constitution of 1871
3.b. Japanese and German Postwar Constitutions
4. The Parliamentary Systems Today
4.a. The Diet and other Governmental Institutions
4.b. Japanese Political Reforms after 1993
4.c. The German Parliament and other Governmental Institutions
5. Concluding Remarks
Objectives and Research Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to conduct a comparative analysis of the parliamentary systems of Japan and Germany, focusing on the structural functions of their respective governments, the Japanese Diet, and the German Bundestag. The work seeks to explain the historical prerequisites that shaped these systems, identify similarities in their political procedures, and contrast their institutional developments.
- Historical parallels in Japanese-German relations over the last 130 years.
- The influence of constitutional developments, specifically the post-1945 democratic restructuring.
- Comparative analysis of parliamentary structure and governmental authority.
- Examination of the role of bureaucracy and political party systems in legislative processes.
Excerpt from the Book
The Meiji Constitution and Germany’s Constitution of 1871
The Meiji Constitution of 1889 (in effect since 1890) had been presented to the Japanese people as a gift from the emperor (tennō), and created several political institutions: It established a bicameral parliament (Imperial Diet consisting of the House of Peers and the House of Representatives), formally recognizing the principle of popular participation in government. Both of the houses had equal powers of initiating legislation (Article 38), and the House of Peers had the right to veto the legislation, made by the House of Representatives (Article 39). The approval of the Diet was necessary to pass the government budget.
In fact, the position of the parliament as a whole was severely limited by the superior status and powers of the emperor who was the ultimate source of sovereignty, and whose authority was “sacred and inviolable” (Article 3). But since the tennō did not rule, the effective location of sovereignty was shifting, dependent on the balance of power at any one time between the various political elites (phenomenon of dual or multiple government). The emperor exercised the legislative power (though with the consent of the Diet), gave sanction to laws (Article 6), had considerable powers over the duration of Diet sessions (Articles 7, 42, and 43), and dissolved the House of Representatives, this leading to new elections (Articles 7, 45).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the purpose of comparing Japan and Germany, posing research questions regarding their historical foundations and contemporary political procedures.
2. The Japanese-German relationship: Details the historical parallel developments and diplomatic relations between the two nations over the last 130 years, including the influence of the Prussian model on early Japanese constitution-building.
3. Constitutional Developments: Analyzes the origins of the Meiji Constitution versus the German Constitution of 1871, followed by a comparative study of the post-WWII American-influenced constitutional frameworks.
4. The Parliamentary Systems Today: Provides an in-depth look at the institutional operations of the Diet and the Bundestag, highlighting the role of political parties, electoral reforms, and bureaucratic influence.
5. Concluding Remarks: Summarizes the similarities and differences in democratic development and institutional functionality, concluding that while both are parliamentary democracies, their decision-making processes and the influence of the executive differ significantly.
Keywords
Parliamentary systems, Japan, Germany, Constitution, Diet, Bundestag, bureaucracy, democratic reforms, executive power, comparative politics, legislative process, political parties, postwar development, sovereignty, consensus.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper provides a structured comparative analysis of the parliamentary systems of Japan and Germany, exploring how historical events and postwar constitutional changes influenced their current political structures.
Which countries are being compared?
The study compares the political and parliamentary systems of Japan and Germany.
What is the central research objective?
The authors aim to determine why these two nations are comparable, what historical prerequisites led to their modern systems, and where similarities or differences exist in their legislative and governmental procedures.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The authors use a comparative historical and institutional analysis, examining legal, political, and historical sources to trace the development of both nations' parliamentary frameworks.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main sections cover the historical relationship between the two countries, their 19th-century constitutional developments, the influence of US occupation post-1945, and the modern operations of the Diet and the Bundestag.
Which keywords define the work?
Key terms include parliamentary systems, Diet, Bundestag, bureaucracy, consensus, constitutionalism, and democratization.
How does the Japanese bureaucracy influence legislative processes compared to Germany?
The paper finds that the Japanese bureaucracy possesses a very strong, often supreme role in formulating and implementing policy, whereas the German bureaucracy, while influential, often acts more reactively to directives from ministers and political parties.
What conclusion do the authors reach regarding the stability of the Japanese prime minister's office?
The authors conclude that Japan's system is less reliable compared to Germany's, noting that Japanese prime ministers typically serve shorter tenures and face restricted influence due to powerful internal party factions, unlike the more influential position of the German Chancellor.
- Quote paper
- Andrea Becker (Author), Maren Reyelt (Author), 2000, The Parliamentary Systems of Japan and Germany: A Comparison, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/27059
