OPINION: Imperial succession debate betrays longing for prewar Japan empire

Watching and listening to parliamentary debate over the revised Imperial House Law, I worried that this principle was being disregarded. Some conservatives argued that succession by a male in the male line is the imperial family's tradition, but their premise was off, making the argument unpersuasive.

Why do they insist on that? Perhaps because many who cling to male-line succession take a negative view of the current Constitution. They likely believe that after Japan's defeat in World War II, the United States "imposed" a constitution. Their stance betrays a longing for the Empire of Japan, which revered the emperor as a figure having the rights of sovereignty. It is a "supra-constitutional" impulse that makes me feel a sense of apprehension. The Constitution of the Empire of Japan states a line of emperors "unbroken for ages eternal," a concept of imperial lineage that includes emperors whose existence has not been confirmed.

Among advocates of the male-line succession, there is little sense that the empire collapsed with defeat and that Japan began its path of renewal under the new Constitution. Nor do they take into view the historical fact that Japan, too, explored various democratic constitutional drafts. While invoking history and tradition, they are denying history.

The revised law, fixated on male-line male succession beyond the dynastic principle set out in the current Constitution, introduced an adoption system that was not permitted even under the prewar Imperial House Law. The system involves male-line male descendants of the former 11 collateral branches that left the imperial family after the war. I do not reject adoption itself as a way to secure the stability of the imperial family. But it is puzzling that while granting succession rights to an adopted son's male child, the husband and children of a female member who remains in the imperial family after marriage would be treated as commoners. It is a complex, twisted system.

Parliament debate over the postwar establishment of the Imperial House Law was thorough and took considerable time. At the time, Emperor Showa had three younger brothers, leaving ample room among potential successors. Even so, it is important that the government, while maintaining male-line succession, did not completely rule out the possibility of a future female emperor or an emperor from the female line.

This time, serious debate was instead stifled under the banner of a "quiet environment" and "the consensus of the legislature." That was the case with the all-party consultations. It set a bad precedent of treating debate over the imperial family as something special.

Because this was a milestone -- the first revision of the law's main provisions since the war -- I wanted parliament to take time to deepen debate over the points at issue and the challenges. It should have been a lesson for the future, yet it ended with only a brief question-and-answer session. "The conscience of the legislature" only became a facade, leaving a lasting problem for the future.

What became clear, conversely, is that unless Japan settles the imperial succession issue that was shelved this time, the future of the imperial family will be precarious. Another revision is needed so that the throne can be inherited without distinction between men and women. That would accord with the constitutional ideals of a symbolic emperor system based on the overall will of the people and of equality between men and women.

However, it would be harsh to apply it to current female members of the imperial family such as Princess Aiko. A sudden change in life planning would be inhumane. It makes sense to apply it starting with female members of the imperial family born in the future.

(Takahisa Furukawa, born in 1962, serves as a professor at Nihon University. He completed a doctoral program at the University of Tokyo and his specialty is modern and contemporary Japanese history.)