TOKYO – More than 70 percent of the Japanese public favor building a broad consensus across political parties in moving toward an amendment of the Constitution, a Kyodo News poll showed Friday, with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi pushing to bring about a change to the postwar supreme law for the first time.
In contrast, 25 percent of respondents supported the idea of beginning to draft amendment provisions only with parties in favor of constitutional changes, according to the nationwide mail survey conducted ahead of Sunday’s Constitution Memorial Day.
The results indicate that the public could grow wary if Takaichi seeks to railroad an amendment on the back of a supermajority that her ruling Liberal Democratic Party holds in the powerful House of Representatives.
An amendment would require approval by a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Diet, followed by majority support in a national referendum. The LDP won two-thirds of the seats in the lower house in an election in February, while it and other pro-reform forces are within reach of two-thirds of the seats in the House of Councillors.
Takaichi, known as a conservative hawk, said at the LDP’s annual convention in April that the “time has come” and that she will strive to bring “in sight” a proposal for a constitutional amendment by the time the party holds its convention next year.
But the survey indicated a gap between Takaichi’s views and public perception, with 73 percent of respondents calling for prioritization of “a broad consensus including among parties cautious about amendments,” around the same level as last year’s survey.
Support for a revision to the Constitution’s war-renouncing Article 9 remained split, with 50 percent favoring a change and 48 percent opposing it.
Article 9 read literally prohibits Japan from possessing military forces and other “war potential.” Seen as the cornerstone of Japan’s current pacifist stance, the article is viewed by conservatives as a humiliation imposed by the U.S.-led occupation following the country’s defeat in World War II.
Among possible areas of amendment under discussion within the LDP and its junior coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party, 84 percent of respondents welcomed the idea of creating a new article to extend the terms of Diet members in the event of major natural disasters and other emergencies that may make the holding of elections difficult.
Fifty-five percent, meanwhile, felt the need to limit the prime minister’s power to dissolve the lower house for a snap general election under Article 7, after Takaichi called the February election to seek a public mandate, although lawmakers’ four-year terms were set to run until October 2028.
On a question about whether any constitutional change should take place, those supportive, including those who somewhat backed the idea, totaled 69 percent, largely unchanged from the previous year, while those opposed stood at 31 percent.
Among supporters, 60 percent gave “not fitting today’s era anymore” as the reason they wanted change, followed by 22 percent who called for “adding new rights, obligations and rules.” Many opponents said they were against change because the Constitution has “maintained peace by renouncing war.”
The survey conducted between March and April targeted 3,000 people aged 18 or over, of whom 63.8 percent, or 1,913, provided valid responses.
A total of 43 percent of respondents said momentum for constitutional revision is growing or somewhat growing, while 56 percent said it is not. Support for faster debate in parliament stood at 46 percent, compared with 53 percent expressing no need to rush.
Concerning other contentious issues, 65 percent said married couples should be given the choice to keep their surnames separate, while 34 percent opposed it.
While Japan’s Civil Code requires a married couple to share a surname, the vast majority of couples who register their marriage in the nation choose the husband’s family name.
The survey also showed 60 percent of respondents agreeing that same-sex marriage should be recognized, compared with 38 percent against it.
Regarding the spread of unverified information on social media during elections, 55 percent said it should be regulated by law, while 31 percent said platform operators should introduce self-regulation. Eleven percent said no regulation is necessary.