Page:Constitutional imperialism in Japan (IA constitutionalim00clemrich).pdf/16

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
8
Constitutional Imperialism in Japan
[Vol. VI

tain powers is not so different from the custom of conferring such "reserved rights" upon the executive in other countries as to require special comment. It is sufficient to call attention to Articles XI–XVI.[1]

There is, however, one constitutional provision which requires special notice under this topic of "The Imperial Prerogative." The Constitution cannot be amended unless a project to that effect is submitted by imperial order to the Imperial Diet. Then, in neither House, can an amendment be debated unless two-thirds of its members are present; and no amendment can be passed unless two-thirds of the members present approve.[2] Ito explains why the Diet cannot initiate an amendment by saying that "the right of making amendments to the Constitution must belong to the Emperor Himself, as He is the sole author of it."[3] But just as the late Emperor, now known as Meiji Tenno, granted the Constitution in response to a desire or a demand, so doubtless any prudent emperor will heed public opinion with reference to amendments.

It may be said in general concerning the imperial authority in Japan that, while nominally and theoretically it is not limited, yet practically it is somewhat limited. Uyehara says: "Neither custom nor law, written or unwritten, nor the Constitution limits his ultimate sovereign power; He is the Supreme Lord and Absolute Master of the Empire."[4]

Yet the Emperor does not interfere in the actual administration of affairs; he reigns but he does not rule. The late Emperor took a deep personal interest in the affairs of state, but never showed the slightest desire to exercise "personal rule." It is, therefore, not difficult for an emperor, unless he is a man of strong personality, to be at the same time an "absolute monarch" and an absolute figure-head. That was often the case in Old Japan; and it is not an impossibility even in New Japan. Uyehara affirms most positively that "it is not the personality of the Emperor ... upon which the strength and the value of the Japanese monarchy depend";[5]

  1. Appendix.
  2. Article LXXIII.
  3. Op. cit., p. 140.
  4. Op. cit., p. 193–194.
  5. Ibid., p. 201.

(328)