While it’s obvious that it has not been peaches and cream for David Cameron, the full, crushing weight of the misery of the situation takes some closer examination. Take for example, the resignation of Liam Fox, now ex-Minister of Defense, for taking trips with one Adam Werritty which have been revealed to be funded by various corporate sources. Bad enough a top-level Conservative MP is taken down for essentially being on the corporate dole, which won’t exactly help the Conservative’s problem of being seen as friends of the City of London, the British analogy to Wall Street in terms of financial power and public perception. The revelations didn’t just end there after it was found that Liam Fox’s now defunct Atlantic Bridge charity was fostering links between British Conservatives and Tea Party funders, like the now infamous Koch Brothers. This Atlantic Bridge group, with its links to the American Legislative Exchange Council, supposedly fostered anti-global warming thought, as well as pushed greater deregulation of healthcare and the energy industry. Now, that doesn’t help Cameron who has been advancing a vision of a new Conservative party that believes in things like climate change, and isn’t out to completely obliterate the NHS due to some Conservative article of faith.

One could go through every British crisis of the past few years and show just how cataclysmic they’ve all been for the Conservative-Liberal-Democrat coalition, but one quick look at the polls will show just how bad of a thrashing this has given them. But here’s the kicker, Clegg and Cameron seem to be holding fast to their positions even as their political worlds seem to crash down around them. Cameron has refused to back down from his severe austerity plan or even consider stimulus,  even as the IMF tells his government to stop tightening, banks get downgraded, and unemployment soars. Instead, Cameron has called for Britons to have a stiff upper lip. Before even getting to how condescending or paternalistic that sounds, just in a purely political sense it almost seems insane that he would do what politicians usually jump in buses before doing in criticizing the character of their constituents. No retreat, no surrender, not even an acknowledgement of uncertainty, Cameron seems to have taken George W. Bush’s imposition to “Stay the Course” as his personal modus operandi.

While it’s somewhat understandable that Cameron would stick to his guns on the hope that Labour won’t be able to reassemble into a cohesive threat, Clegg seems to be ready to go down with the coalition ship at this point. Even in the face of huge drops of public support, out right accusations of betrayal by the party faithful, and levels of discontent mirroring or even eclipsing that of progressive discontent with President Obama, Clegg isn’t making any apologies. Even as the political sky seems to be falling on the Liberal Democrats who are far from the heights of popularity they experienced during the last election, even as back-benchers make more than a few disquieted noises, Clegg is doing is still standing by Cameron with almost Herculean endurance. In the end, it’s unclear how much political loyalty counts when the base is out for blood.

The Lib-Dems and Tories have completely boxed themselves into a corner and they don’t have a way out without performing a public and likely embarrassing about-face or a turn of events so fortuitous it would resemble divine providence. If we look at the austerity issue, Cameron either has the option of hoping the economy picks up soon, so he can credit the success to his policies, but leaving him open to intense criticism if that economic boom doesn’t occur, or he can rollback the austerity programs and implement stimulative policies, but that would require going back on years of tough rhetoric which would leave him with more than a little egg on his face. However, unlike Clegg he at least still has the option of potentially back-pedaling some, regrouping, and then trying again. Clegg, if he wanted to change course, would either have to ally with Labour and force a vote of no confidence, but with the Lib-Dems single-digit popularity, it’s hardly likely anything will happen besides several seats being lost for his party and potentially being relegated back to being a second-tier political force, or he could try to push harder at the table with the Conservatives, but even then he couldn’t push too hard without risking an election being called could potentially wipe out both parties or a Conservative backlash that leads to the Lib-Dems being given even less leeway to curtail Conservative excesses than before.

In short, Cameron and Clegg are in rather dire political straits, no matter how one analyzes the situation. While Labour isn’t some unstoppable juggernaut at this point and it has more than its own share of internal problems, fundamentally since Labour isn’t in power, they aren’t holding the bag on the issues that daunt Britain. However, Cameron and Clegg aren’t just victims of circumstance because on some level they maneuvered themselves into their current position. It’s their move and Britain depends on it but more and more it seems like staying pat to their current positions isn’t going to cut it.

After decades of one-party rule, the Liberal Democratic Party falters

In the United States last year, “change we can believe in” became a national catchphrase. In Japan this past August, the slogan of the victorious opposition party was seiken kotai, meaning “political change.” The triumph of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which won 308 of 480 seats in the powerful lower house of Parliament, marked the end of over 50 years of nearly uninterrupted rule by the center-right Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

Observers in the West heralded the change as a landmark in Japanese politics, but were skeptical about the DPJ’s commitment to reform. The Washington Post, for instance, applauded the end of one-party domination while lamenting that the DPJ had “bought the votes of farmers with money and protection.” In addition to ushering in an era of increased political competition, however, the party has begun to push for substantial, long-awaited reforms in the Japanese political system and a new, more independent approach in relations with the United States, promising signs that the DPJ may substantiate its promises.

Bureaucracy, Technocracy, and One-Party Rule

Japanese politics has historically been dominated by a massive civil service bureaucracy, with over a million employees in various government ministries today. The bureaucrats gained increasing influence over the political decision-making process following World War II, in part due to Japan’s technocratic, government-managed model of economic development. By 1975, the power of the civil servants had grown so much that one minister in Parliament griped that the legislative branch was “an extension of the bureaucracy.”

But in a country known for its conservative political culture, the LDP remained in power even as the bureaucracy mushroomed and the country slogged through the “lost decade” of economic stagnation in the 1990s. During his tenure in the early 2000s, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi battled many of his fellow Liberal Democrats to shrink and privatize the 400,000-member government-run postal, insurance, and financial conglomerate known as “Japan Post.” Although the initiative was ultimately successful, it took years of political maneuvering and intense infighting to pass the legislation.

After Koizumi’s departure in 2006, the LDP was unable to produce another popular candidate. The party replaced its prime minister three times in three years, foreshadowing its landslide defeat at the hands of the DPJ in this year’s elections. The new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, appears to have a mandate for change with an approval rating hovering around 70 percent.

The DPJ includes many former LDP members, but the parties diverge in their governing style and foreign policy orientation. Gerald Curtis, professor of political science at Columbia University, said in an interview with HPR, “the differences are very coherent and dramatic. It is the biggest change in more than half a century in Japan. The two parties have totally different views on how to govern.” Although the DPJ has center-left roots, it has taken a hard line on taming the bloated bureaucracy and crafting an Asia-centered foreign policy.

Taming the Bureaucratic Monster

In its first months in power, the DPJ has faced the challenge of reforming the Japanese civil service head on. The party leadership has focused on increasing accountability and transparency in the government by restoring power to appointed ministers. Michael Green, Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the HPR that the DPJ “has been trying to give politicians more control, and leave the bureaucrats in a more implementing role.” Whereas the LDP lacked the political will to confront its allies in the bureaucracy, the DPJ’s plan has achieved considerable success in a short period of time. “The DPJ has managed in only a month in office to fundamentally change this system … . In today’s climate, if bureaucrats actively oppose a policy, they will lose their jobs,” Curtis explained.

With the influence of the bureaucracy in check, policymaking has become less opaque. Prior to the recent elections, top civil servants in each ministry were allowed to hold weekly decision-making meetings without the participation of politicians. The DPJ quickly banned those meetings, to the acclaim of most of the Japanese public.

The Beginning of a “Different” Friendship

The DPJ has also gained popularity for its new approach to foreign policy, which many Japanese had perceived as too dependent on the United States. Hatoyama has repeatedly declared that he will pursue a “more equal relationship” with America. This attitude stems in part from a sense among left-leaning politicians in the DPJ that close ties with the U.S. have not sufficiently benefited Japan. In particular, they point to Japan’s extensive cooperation with the Pentagon and the establishment of dozens of American military bases on the Japanese islands. The largest set of bases, in Okinawa, occupies 18 percent of the island’s territory. Located close to residential areas, they are unpopular among the public. The DPJ’s vision of an “equal relationship” with the United States entails the removal of many of these bases. In another sign of the new order it wishes to establish, the DPJ has reduced Japan’s involvement in Afghanistan. The DPJ recently ended the controversial refueling of NATO ships in the Indian Ocean.

Japan’s consul general in New England, Masaru Tsuji, downplayed the changes in an interview with the HPR. “Although American relations remain a cornerstone for the country, the new regime wants to emphasize equal partnership. Both countries have a new administration and thus require a new type of cooperation,” Tsuji argued, noting that Japan remains the third largest contributor to economic reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Yet there is little doubt that there has been a shift in rhetoric and policy. Shoichi Itoh, an expert in U.S.-Japan relations at the Brookings Institution, told the HPR that the DPJ “desires a more independent foreign policy,” and would be less deferential to Washington than its predecessor. 

In a pre-election op-ed in the New York Times, Hatoyama called for a “new path for Japan” and the creation of an “East Asian community” for collective security. “We must not forget our identity as a nation located in Asia,” Hatoyama wrote. “I believe that the East Asian region, which is showing increasing vitality, must be recognized as Japan’s basic sphere of being. … The financial crisis has suggested to many that the era of U.S. unilateralism may come to an end.”

Hope and Change

The DPJ has thus begun to give seiken kotai concrete meaning at home and abroad. Its victory portends not only an era of increased competitiveness and accountability in Japanese politics, but also a significant departure from the LDP’s domestic and foreign policy. Prime Minister Hatoyama seems set to pursue many long-anticipated changes as a reformer. But the real test for his party may be whether reform produces renewed economic growth and a new model of capitalism for Japan. If he is successful, the Japanese may soon see the benefits of their more competitive democracy in a tangible way.

Image Credit: m-louis (Flickr)

Anyway, that’s more or less the situation.  Fairly straightforward.  What is, I think, a little more interesting is wondering what practical consequences this will have.  While the DPJ has stated its intention to take a second look at the U.S.-Japan alliance, it’s hard to imagine a fundamental transformation of it (though nothing is impossible).  It’s an old country, and inherently conservative, and so while American bases are disliked by their neighbors, the status quo is certainly less troublesome than finding a new niche for Japan in the world.  It can get kind of crowded and irritating under the American security umbrella, but hey.  It’s rainy out there.

There will be more appetite for substantive change in the domestic sector, and the DPJ is certainly proposing some novel ideas, such as subsidies for child raising to address the aging of the population.  Their spending plans are fairly ambitious, which might run into trouble due to Japan’s massive indebtedness (though their low financing rate means that the debt is far less burdensome than it might appear at first glance).  They are already trying to bring some measure of accountability to the bureacracy, which throws away money as patronage, by means of public shaming, and surely more definitive action will follow their ascent to power. On the other hand, as the New York Times correctly notes, the relative novices of the DPJ simply may lack the institutional expertise necessary for broad governmental reform, as bureaucrats are jealous of their territory and know how to guard it (as true in Japan as at Harvard).

It’s at this point impossible to really say what will happen with any degree of certainty, unsatisfying as that is.  Except for one thing, which is that really for the first time since the end of the war, Japan has found itself in interesting times.  Which is a significant enough development in and of itself, and anyone with an interest in Asia will likely have an engaging few years ahead of them.