Resolved: That the Japanese government should introduce a comprehensive system of national referendum.

Flowsheet (outline of arguments)

Manuscripts & Transcripts

1AC

Under the status quo, Japanese people cannot directly participate in policy-making process.  Even when they want to say "no" to a policy, there is no system to express their objections.  In order to solve this problem and realize true democracy, we support the resolution that the Japanese government should introduce a comprehensive system of national referendum, to be exemplified in the following plan.

(PLAN)
Point 1. A national referendum shall be held on a bill passed by the Diet [except for the national budget] if it is requested by 1 million Japanese voters within 2 months.
Point 2. The decision based on the majority of the votes shall be legally binding.
Point 3. Necessary adjustments and funding shall be provided through normal procedures.
In support of this proposal, we offer two contentions.

Contention I. Harms.  People cannot say "no" to a national policy.  Cannot say no.
Subpoint A. People want to participate in the policy making.  They want to participate.
A 1996 Asahi poll shows that 82 % people wish to participate in the policy making process, saying that their will never reaches the Diet (Asahi Shimbun, July 20, 1996, p. 15).  These policies include solutions to Jusen housing loan problems, to which 76% showed objections, the legalization of the Hinomaru national flag and the Kimigayo anthem, and the authorization of wiretaps in crime investigation.  However,

Subpoint B. The current system cannot reflect the nation's will.  Cannot reflect the will.
According to the Asahi Evening News in 1999 (December 7, p. 8), "the constitution provides for national referendums as part of the process of constitutional amendments."  However, it explains that national referendum dealing with general policies is not legalized.  Moreover, local referendum carried out in certain districts has no legal binding power.  Therefore,

Subpoint C. Democracy is in danger.  Democracy is in danger.
Journalist Imai 1996:  "As we can see in the Jusen problem, even if politicians make irresponsible policies and fail, they are never responsible for them and the nation has to make up for them.  If so, it is better for the nation to decide policies and take responsibilities for them by themselves even if they have a risk to make a wrong decision." (Hajime Imai, Daijinakoto wa Kokumintoohyoo de Kimeyoo, Diamond Sha, 1996, p. 29.)

Moreover, according to a 1996 Asahi poll, 86% people are dissatisfied with the present Diet (Asahi Shimbun, July 20, 1996, p. 15).

Even if politicians make a wrong and irresponsible policy, people do not have a way to oppose it.  As a result, people are losing interest and trust in politics and politicians, thus democracy is in danger.

We offer a solution to save democracy in our second contention.
Contention II. Solution.  National referendum saves democracy.
Subpoint A. People will have a direct means to oppose policies.  People can oppose.
National referendum on bills passed by the Diet is a new direct means for people to oppose national policies.  Former Diet member Ueda argues in 1996 that the Japanese government must have a system in order to reflect nation's opinions enough about problems that people find important for them.  He says that the answer is national referendum.  (Tetsu Ueda, Tanjyoo! Kokumintoohyoo, Data House sha, 1996, p. 55.)

Since unfavorable policies would be rejected, politicians and bureaucrats will make policies that reflect the nation's will.

Subpoint B. Policy makers will respect people's will.  They will respect people.
Journalist Imai says in 1997 that if the country introduces national referendum, the elite of the country who run the Diet must be careful in making national policies.  He also says that they will learn that the government they run must increase the benefits and the welfare of their people.  (Hajime Imai, Jyuumintoohyoo, Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha, 1997, p. 12.)

In sum, we have a serious harm that our democracy is in danger because national policies do not reflect the nation's will.  So many people are dissatisfied.  National referendum will solve the problem by giving people a means to oppose policies.  This will in turn make policy makers respect people more.  We can realize a true democracy, where people, politicians, and bureaucrats all work together to make a better society.
 

Cross-examination by the Negative
 
 
 

1NC

The indirect democracy is working quite well in Japan.  It is reflecting public opinions in the process of national policymaking.  Therefore, national referendum is not necessary and is even disadvantageous.

(Contention I) The affirmative teamfs Contention I says people cannot say gnoh to national policies.  I have three responses.

First, peoplefs opinions are reflected in the government.  There are elections and mass media that convey the nationfs will.  For example, the affirmative showed that people did not like the solution to the Jusen housing loan problem.  But then Prime Minister Hashimoto was forced to step down because people voiced their dissatisfaction.

Obuchi Cabinet is also reflectign the nation's will.  The Asahi Shimbun editor Jiro Arioka 1999: "Because of public opinion's resistance, Chief Cabinet Secretary Nonaka changed attitude saying that the insurance system for the elderly care starts from next April without fail. " (Chiezoo 2000) Actually, public opinion chaned the government policy.

Second, people are not interested in national issues.  This is evidenced in the voting rates of general elections and national referendum on Supreme Court judges.  The Japan Times, October 21, 1996: "Voter turnout in the Oct. 20 election for the Lower House dropped to an all-time low of around 59 percen."  Kazuhiko Iwami, a professor of youth sociology at Kansai University, said in the same paper, "Young people are fundamentally 'me-ists' and are only interested in things close to them."

Thus, people can change politics under the present system and they do not really want direct participation.

(Contention II) About the affirmative's second contention, solution, we argue that the plan would not solve the problem even if there were any.

First, referendum lacks flexibility.  For example, it only asks yes or no.  Takeo Yamaguchi of the Osaka City government 1998: "Referendum cannot but take an alternative voting system of "yes or no," owing to its character.  Then, it is not enough to reflect various opinions and ideas of the citizens...." (Jichikenkyuu, vol. 74, no. 1, p. 84)  Thus referendum cannot reflect various opinions.

Second, people will lose interests.  Koosa Fukui of Gakushuin University's Law Research Institute 1995: "It's well expected that the introduction of voluntary referendum like Switzerland causes excessive uses of referendum and then we can expect that the turnout will decrease in the first place." (Hoogaku Ronshuu, no. 3, p. 138)  If we have many referendum, people will lose interests and will not participate.

Third, people will not say "no" in referendum.  Once something is decided at the government level, many Japanese do not say no.  Referendum on Supreme Court judges is a good example.  The Sankei Shimbun (October 21, 1996) reported that they all received less than 10% no confidence ballots.  It further says that the highest no confidence rate among prefectures so far was 34.35% recorded in 1972 when late Judge Shimoda expressed his approval of the reunification of Okinawa with nuclear arms."  Probably almost all people in Okinawa do not want nuclear arms but the referendum did not reflect that.

Therefore, the affirmative plan would not solve their problem.

Finally, we would like to present two disadvantages of the plan.
Disadvantage I. People make bad choices.  Bad choices.
Subpoint A. People cannot choose right policy.
First reason.  People cannot understand policies in detail.  Shozoo Takayori of the Kobe City government 1980: "...complex policy questions require advanced special knowledge.  They include a controlling business policy and a total plan of urban traffic.  Such complex policy legislations are beyond the judging ability of the general public...." (Juumintoohyoo to Shimin Sanka, Keiso Shobo, p. 135)

Second reason is that people think of their own life because they are egoists.  Cross-apply Professor Iwami's analysis about the voting rate.

Disadvantage II. Policies delay.  Policies delay.
Subpoint A. National referendum delays policies.  After the Diet passes a bill, the government has to wait for several months before carrying out the policy.  If a key policy was rejected in a referendum, the government would propose a revised bill, the Diet discusses the bill, passes it, the government waits for several months, and so on.

We will develop the Disadvantages in the 2nd Negative Constructive.
 

Cross-examination by the Affirmative
 
 
 

2AC

Ifll start my speech with refutation against disadvantages and move to contention I and II.

As for the 1st Disadvantage gbad decisions,h  Ifll argue that people will make correct decisions.  I have three subpoints.
First, Japanese people have enough ability.  According to Journalist Hajime Imai 1996, Japanese have as high educational standard as Europeans who have national referendum. (Daijinakoto wa Kokumintoohyoo de Kimeyoo, Diamondo Sha, p. 28)

Moreover, according to Fumihiko Takeda, Chief of Ultimate Democracy Research Center 1993, we do not need high intellectual skills like a judge and level of a graduate from junior high school is enough to express what they think of policies and to reflect that on politics. (Minshushugi Shinkaron Ge, Takeuchishoten Shinsha, p. 65)

Second, people will learn through referendum.  Professor Shozo Takayori at Konan University 1996 says that thanks to national referendum, citizens will improve their knowledge and skills to make a decision more than present indirect democracy through debates and open information for a topic. (Shimin Jichi to Chokusetsu Minshuseii, Koujin no Yusha, p. 71)

Actually learning through referendum works in Switzerland.  According to Imai 96 again, in Switzerland when they held national referendum about joining the United Nations, people each eagerly studied their role through newspapers, TV, magazines, discussion with neighbors and learning from politicians. (p. 28).

Third, people are not selfish.  One, the evidence doesnft prove the point.  The Iwami card in their contention I says that young people are only interested in things close to them.  That doesnft mean gselfishh.  Two, people will improve thanks to educational effects of national referendum.

Thus, we donft need to worry about people.  Trust them.

On the 2nd Disadvantage, delaying policies, I will turn it around and argue that referendum will be quicker than the current system.  Under the current system, if political parties cannot agree on a bill, deliberation goes on and on.  It takes more than a year.  But referendum can immediately ask for the nationfs will and decides the question in a few months.  This is not a disadvantage but an advantage of the referendum.

Now, letfs talk about the affirmative case, Contention I.  The negative said that peoplefs opinions are reflected.  First, they picked up just two lucky cases.  Second, Obuchi carried out policies against the nationfs will.  Under the Obuchi Cabinet, the Wire Tap Law, the Hinomaru Flag, and the Kimigayo Anthem were legalized even though people opposed.  Third, people want national referendum.  82% of people said they wanted it in a poll.  Therefore, fourth, itfs better to give people a direct way to say no.  Thatfs a guarantee to reflect peoplefs opinion on national policies.

Next, the negative said that peoplefs participation is low.  I have two responses.
First, the current voting rates are low because people know their opinions wonft be reflected.
Second, this is a turnaround.  Peoplefs participation will increase if we have referendum.  We can see this trend in local referendum.  Journalist Imai 1997 says that people gradually know about their town as activities progress and successful residents referendum has been increasing. (Jyuumintoohyoo, Nikkei Osaka Press, p. 61)  In the same way, people know more about the country through referendum and their participation will increase.

About our 2nd Contention, Solution, the negative team said first, referendum lacks flexibility.  But thatfs not a problem.  Itfs easier to answer yes or no.  Moreover, the point is to establish a system for people to directly show their opposition.  Thatfs what people want.

Second, the negative said that Japanese people would not say no.  Wrong.  The evidence just shows that people have approved Supreme Court judges.  They considered overall qualification of the judges, not simply one isolated statement out of the context.  People decisions are reasonable.
 

Cross-examination by the Negative
 
 
 

2NC

I will develop disadvantages in my speech and my partner will deal with the affirmative case in the next speech.

Disadvantage I.  Bad decisions.
Subpoint A.  We argued people's choices would be bad.  The affirmative said people are OK.  First, referendum requires advanced knowledge.  Professor Tomino of Shimane University said, "I have an experience as a politician, so I can say that advanced knowledge is necessary for politics.  It means that only to follow the nation's will is not enough for a good policy." (Hajime Imai, Jumin Toohyoo, Nikkei Osaka, 1997, p. 91)  Second, they cannot learn difficult politics without accumulated knowledge.  Third, people are egoistic and selfish.  When you only think about yourself, you are selfish.

Subpoint B.  Important laws would be rejected.  Since people vote based on their own opinion, they would reject whatever they don't want.  For example, the Wire-tap Law would have been rejected.  Most people don't want it simply because they think their phones would be wiretapped.  According to the 43rd Jiji News Watch Internet public opinion survey from June 1st to June 6th 1999, 16% (141) peopled agreed to the Wire-Tapping Law and 84% (740) people disagree to it. (Http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/jiji/news/main/result/43rd/index.html)

However, the Wire-Tapping Law is necessary to cope with drug crimes.  Rieko Suzuki commented on the Web (http://iii.asahi.com/paper/special/bouju/9908053.htm): "Cellular phones are used in drug trade and so the Wire-Tapping Law is necessary." If it were not for wire-tapping, the police would not be able to cope with drug crimes.

Subpoint C.  Impacts.  One, drugs would harm young people.  Professor Takayuki Shiihashi of Chuo University 1997: "Pollution of drugs does a lot of harm to not only ordinary people but also junior and high school students." (Hoogaku Shimpoo, vol. 103, no. 7,  p. 2)

Two, drug users would commit suicides and brutal crimes.  Drug Research Group 1991: "After you stop using LSD, marijuana, and other stimulants, conditions like chronic addiction often start.  It is called flash back.  For example, because of LSD, problems are reported such as that people died by jumping off from a high place or committed a murder.  Moreover, some people committed a suicide by using drug only one time."

If we adopted referendum and people chose whatever they want, serious problems such as this would happen one after another.  We should not accept such a risk.

Disadvantage II.  Referendum delays policies.
Subpoint A.  The affirmative said the referendum is quicker.  One referendum may be quicker but t if the government or political parties do not like the result, they will propose a slightly revised law and that would be put to referendum.  If it were rejected, they would propose another revision, and so on.  The process wouldn't stop.  Second, referendum is always extra delay after the Diet deliberation.  There's no evidence to show that the Diet would be quicker if we had referendum.  Third, legislation would be more unpredictable.  We can more or less predict what the government would do now.  But referendum is a totally new idea to Japanese.  This would harm the economy.

For example, subpoint B.  Slow and unpredictable policies decrease stock prices.  Stock market falls.  According to Imidas 98, stock prices in the Tokyo market continued to drop drastically because of unclear economy and the drop was accelerated by fear for delaying administrative financial reform along with depreciation of yen.

Subpoint C.  Decline of stock prices depresses economy.  According to Hitotsubashi economics professor Kazumi Asako 1998, the big characteristics of present stagnant economy is a sudden drop in the stock prices or land prices and it has had a bad effect on actual economy. (????, Shuuei Sha, p. 43)

Subpoint D. Stagnant economy causes serious problems such as losing jobs and even suicides.  The National Police Agency announced that the number of suicides was nearly 33,000 in 1998.  The rate of suicides caused by economic living problems has been increasing since the bubble economy collapsed.  At the time of bubble economy annual suicides due to economic problems were about 1,000 but in 1998 the number increased to 2,502. (Nihon no Ronten 2000, Bungei Shunju, p. 458)

Because of the affirmative plan, investors will become cautious due to fear for delayed and unpredictable politics.  Stock prices, then, will drop and depress the economy.  People will suffer and lose jobs.  They will commit suicides.  That's what referendum will bring about.
 

Cross-examination by the Affirmative
 
 
 

1NR

Our current political system maintains a balance between reflecting people's opinions and politician's wisdom.

About Contention I, first, our cases are not based on luck.  We have a system of election to reflect people's opinions.  Remember the Socialist Party gained power when people dissatisfied with the LDP policies.  The socialists lost many seats later because they failed to come up to people's expectation.

Second, voting rates have been low in national elections and Supreme Court Judges Reviews.  They were even decreasing.  The affirmative said referendum would increase voting.  People may be interested in local issues but still many people do not vote.  National referendum is far more detached from people.  It would rather decrease voter turnouts.  Kousa Fukui of Gakushuin University's Law Research Center 1995, in voluntary referendum, it is highly possible that referendum is held excessively like in Switzerland.  Increase of voting, therefore, leads to decrease of voter turnouts. (Hoogaku Ronshuu, no. 3, p. 138).

About the affirmative's Contention II, I argue again that referendum would not solve the problem.

First, referendum is not flexible.  The affirmative said yes or no is OK.  But many issues are not that simple.  If people want to revise a law, they cannot propose a revision.  Furthermore, it's difficult to modify the result.  Professor Nobuo Tomita of Meiji University 1998: "When it comes to national referendum, the problem gets much larger.  What happens when citizens make a wrong decision?  As long as the sovereignty belongs to citizens, the result of national referendum becomes absolute.  There is no other way to change it but to carry out national referendum again.  The Diet also may make a wrong decision.  However, such problems can be changed easily.  Moreover, it is possible to change the members of the Diet through elections.  This point is the merit of parliamentary democracy." (Min'i, Seitoo, Senkyo, Shinhyooron, p. 39)

Second, if the voting rate is low the result will not be accurate.  Let me give you a simple calculation.  If the voting rate is 60%, and 60% said no to a policy, what does it mean?  Is the nation's will "no"?  But only 36% of the all voters said "no".  Did the remaining 64% approve the policy?

Overall, referendum is risky and the current system is better.  Nobuyuki Hanashi, head of the LDP's constitutional research panel was quoted in 1999: "[The system] has many problems.  The outcome [of a referendum] could vary widely depending on how it is conducted. ... The current system of representative democracy is much safer and more reliable." (Asahi Evening News, December 7, 1999, p. 8)
 

1AR

Disadvantage I.  People's choice.  First, people can handle it.  Brian Needham in the Economist, September 11, 1993 cited Swiss examples and concluded: "Direct democracy can deal with complex matters responsibly, even when they affect the voter's pocket."

Second, Japanese people are sensible not selfish.  According to a Yomiuri poll in 1996, 56.4% people think that Japan should improve the service of welfare even if the tax gets higher. (Satoshi Ueda, Tanjoo! Kokumintoohyoo, Data House, pp. 101-102.)  People do not seek for their own benefits alone and they can think of Japan's overall future.

Third, specifically, the wiretap law is a bad example.  (a) Privacy is important.  We don't want the policy to listen to our phone conversation.  (b) The police have been arresting drug criminals without wire-tapping.  (c) If the government showed overall benefits of the law, it would have been approved.

Disadvantage II.  Speed of policy making.  First, referendum does not delay.  (a) Politicians will proceed quicker than now, as Takeda 1993 predicts.  If people have the decisive power to decide policies, politicians will not use their energy for opposition rather use for explanation of their opinions to the nation. (Fumihiko Takeda, Chief of Ultimate Research Center, Minshushugi Shinkaron Ge, Takeuchishoten Shinsha, p. 196)  (b) The current politics and economy are enough unpredictable.  Political parties and Prime Ministers change all the time.   The negative evidence says economy is unclear.  Referendum won't add anything.

Second, stock prices are up and down by nature.  Referendum won't change that.  Rather, the market may welcome the new policy to reflect people's will.  It will increase.

Third, reflecting the nation's will is more important than stock prices.  If it is the price for democracy, we should pay it.

Case.  Contention I.  The current system does not work.  We need referendum to supplement it.  Senior staff writer Kiyoshi Kobayashi in the Asahi Evening News (December 7, 1999, p. 8): "Reflecting the will of the people in legislation is the primary responsibility of Diet members.  Opinion polls show, however, that public confidence in the parliamentarians is declining.  The national referendum system has a large role as a means of complementing parliamentary democracy."

Contention II. Referendum works.  First, flexibility.  Referendum won't be the only way of policy making.  It only asks for yes or no of the people.  The rest is taken care of by the Diet, the government, and so on.

Second, voting rate.  We can statistically determine the will of the people.  We don't need to ask all voters.  We just guarantee voting and count whoever votes.

Third, the Diet will be more responsible.  Journalist Imai 1996 says that the Diet cannot establish irresponsible or inconsistent policies, because people will reject such policies.  (Daijinakto wa Kokimintoohyoo de Kimeyoo, Diamond Sha, pp. 31-32)

Overall, the indirect democracy is not enough.  We need a direct system to help it.
 

2NR
 
 
 

2AR