Election surge by rightwing populist Sanseito party shakes Japan
The ruling coalition, composed of the LDP and its junior partner, Kōmeitō, lost its majority in the house. While the center-left Constitutional Democratic party maintained its position as the largest opposition group, the breakout success of the election was that of Sanseitō, an ultranationalist populist party.
Sanseitō successfully framed immigration as a central issue in the election campaign, with the provocative slogan 'Japanese First.' The party won 14 seats in the 248-seat chamber, a substantial jump from the single seat it won in the last election in 2022.
Sanseitō calls itself a party of 'ordinary Japanese citizens with the same mindset who came together.' It was formed in 2020 by Sōhei Kamiya, a conservative career politician who served as a city councillor in Suita, a city in Osaka Prefecture, before being elected to the House of Councillors.
Although Sanseitō was initially known for its stance against the Covid-19 vaccine, it has more recently campaigned on an anti-foreigner and anti-immigration platform. The party, which also holds three seats in the powerful lower house, has quickly gained seats in regional and national elections. It most recently won three seats in Tokyo's prefectural elections in June 2025.
Sanseitō is 'anti-globalist,' urging voters to feel proud of their ethnicity and culture. Polls suggest the party is popular among younger men aged between 18 and 30.
Throughout the most recent election campaign, Kamiya repeatedly spread far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation. This included arguing that multinational corporations had caused the pandemic, as well as that foreigners commit crimes en masse and can avoid paying inheritance tax. Social media have amplified Sanseitō's xenophobic messaging.
Sanseitō's electoral success is reminiscent of other right-wing populist parties across Europe and North America, which also place immigration as a core issue.
Kamiya denies being a xenophobe. But he has expressed support for the Republican party in the US, Reform in the UK, Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany and Rassemblement National in France. Echoing other right-wing populist leaders, Kamiya has promised tax cuts, home-grown industries, regulation of foreigners and patriotic education.
However, while Sanseitō rides the global wave of right-wing populism, it also has deeply Japanese roots. Following Japan's defeat in the Second World War, a distinct current of right-wing thought developed, defending 'traditional values' and glorifying Japan's imperial past.
Tensions have flared periodically over issues such as history education and official visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where those who died in service of Japan – including military leaders convicted of war crimes – are commemorated. There have also been disputes around the memorialization of so-called 'comfort women' alleged to have been forced into sex slavery by Japanese forces before and during the war.
Building on these currents, Sanseitō represents a new generation of Japanese conservatism, not just an emulation of foreign populist leaders.
Sanseitō's rise could have a pivotal influence on Japan's political landscape. While the prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, has indicated he will not resign, the ruling coalition has now lost control of both houses. Ishiba may need to seek support from other parties and may face leadership challenges.
He also must respond to issues Sanseitō has raised. LDP policymakers are now aware of public anxieties surrounding migration, excessive tourism and cultural integration. Seeking to co-opt some of Sanseitō's proposals, the government has already banned tourists from driving and set up a new government agency to address concerns about non-Japanese nationals. It has also pledged to reduce illegal immigration to zero.
But the government is facing steep economic and demographic challenges, such as US tariffs, a rapidly ageing and declining population, and a record-low birth rate. So it cannot afford to cut immigration dramatically. Policymakers will have to balance economic needs with hardening public attitudes towards foreigners.
It's not just immigration that will be at stake. Ishiba will need to navigate wedge issues that could split the LDP's conservative support base. These include same-sex marriage, the use of separate surnames by married couples and female succession to the throne.
It's too early to say whether Sanseitō can sustain its momentum. Numerous populist leaders in Japan before Kamiya have succeeded in turning mistrust of the political class into votes at the ballot box. However, few have been able to translate it into meaningful political change across multiple election cycles.
For instance, Shinji Ishimaru made headlines in 2024 after placing second in the race for Tokyo governor. But his Path to Reform party, which promised educational reform, struggled in the latest election. Reiwa Shinsengumi, the left populist party led by Tarō Yamamoto, also enjoyed success in previous elections but remains small.
Only time will tell if Sanseitō will become a major political party or yet another minority group on the fringes. But it's clear anti-immigration populism has arrived in Japan. And it looks like it's here to stay.
Rin Ushiyama is a lecturer in sociology, Queen's University Belfast.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
an hour ago
- RTHK
Trump hikes India levy over Russian oil
Trump hikes India levy over Russian oil US President Donald Trump has imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on goods from India. Photo: AFP US President Donald Trump has ordered steeper tariffs on Indian goods over New Delhi's continued purchase of Russian oil. The additional 25-percent tariff on Indian goods, coming into place in three weeks, stacks atop a separate 25-percent duty entering into force on Thursday, taking the level to 50 percent for many products. Trump's order also threatens penalties on other countries who "directly or indirectly" import Russian oil, a key revenue source for Moscow's war in Ukraine. Exemptions remain however for goods targeted under sector-specific duties such as steel and aluminium, and categories that could be hit later, like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. Smartphones are in this list of exempted products for now, shielding Apple from a major hit as the US tech titan shifts production from China to India. India's foreign ministry condemned Trump's announcement, calling the move "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable." The ministry previously said India began importing oil from Russia as traditional supplies were diverted to Europe over the war – noting that Washington had "actively encouraged" such imports to strengthen "global energy market stability." But Trump recently raised pressure on India over the oil purchases, threatening new tariffs as part of a campaign to force Moscow into ending its conflict with Ukraine. The 25-percent additional tariff is lower than a 100-percent level Trump floated last month when he told Russia to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days or face massive new economic sanctions. The Republican said at the time that these would be "secondary tariffs" targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, seeking to impede Moscow's ability to survive already sweeping Western sanctions. "This marks a low point in US-India relations," said Farwa Aamer, the Asia Society Policy Institute's director of South Asia Initiatives. She expects domestic pressure for India to accede to US demands, but said "this will be a tough road to navigate." (AFP)
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Republicans, usually strong Taiwan supporters, stay quiet about denying US stopover to Lai
The White House's apparent decision to block Taiwanese leader William Lai Ching-te's transit through New York has sparked backlash from Democrats but met with relative silence from Republicans, including those typically outspoken about Taiwan. The muted Republican response marks a notable shift for a party that has in recent years championed high-profile engagement with Taipei – including symbolic moves that Democrats have avoided. It also comes amid high-stakes US-China trade negotiations that some observers have suggested is motivating the posture. On Monday, three Democratic representatives – Raja Krishnamoorthi, the senior Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party; Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and Gregory Stanton, a co-chair of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus – sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio raising 'grave concern' over the decision. Stopping Lai's transit represented a 'stark departure from precedent', the Democrats wrote, and 'sends a dangerous signal to Beijing about our willingness to make concessions with regard to our national strategic interests'. 'We call on you to approve any requested transit by President Lai and reaffirm the United States' long-standing policy regarding Taiwan,' they continued.
AllAfrica
16 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Fear built the nuclear bomb – only trust can ensure it is never used again
The world entered its nuclear epoch 80 years ago on August 6, 1945. The US dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, killing between 70,000 and 140,000 civilians by the end of that year. A stark reminder of this immense destructive power came recently. On August 1, US President Donald Trump announced the redeployment of two submarines – presumably Ohio-class subs carrying ballistic missiles – in response to what he called 'highly provocative statements' by Russia's former president Dmitry Medvedev. It may have been empty posturing by Trump. But one Ohio-class submarine (the US Navy has 14 in its fleet) carries approximately 90 warheads, each with destructive power many times greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and, three days later, Nagasaki. As the world remembers the devastation wrought by these bombings, the threat of nuclear conflict remains a persistent threat to humanity. For many years, it was believed that building an atomic weapon was not feasible given the amount of uranium-235 required for a bomb. This assumption changed in March 1940 when two refugee physicists – Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch, who both worked at the University of Birmingham – produced in secret what became known as the Frisch-Peierls memorandum. Their memorandum showed that a powerful atomic bomb could be built using only a small amount of uranium-235. What drove Frisch and Peierls was fear that Nazi Germany might build the bomb first. They wrote: 'If one works on the assumption that Germany is, or will be, in the possession of this weapon … The most effective reply would be a counter-threat with a similar bomb. It would obviously be too late to start production when such a bomb is known to be in the hands of Germany, and the matter seems, therefore, very urgent.' The Frisch-Peierls memorandum was submitted to the British government as a warning. Prime Minister Winston Churchill heeded the message, establishing the Maud committee a month later to investigate the military potential of atomic energy. It reported in secret in July 1941, urging production of a bomb and Britain's cooperation with the US in this endeavour. In a now-famous line, the committee said: 'No nation would care to risk being caught without a weapon of such decisive possibilities.' The demonstration of what the atomic bomb was capable of at Hiroshima, and then at Nagasaki, spurred others to follow the committee's logic. The Soviet Union, fearing a US atomic monopoly, tested its first bomb in 1949. Britain joined the nuclear club in 1952, followed by France in 1960 and China in 1964. It is widely accepted that Israel had developed nuclear capability by the early 1970s, though it has maintained a position of ambiguity. India and Pakistan became declared nuclear powers in 1998 and North Korea followed in 2006. While factors such as national ambition and status played a role in proliferation, a key driving force was fear, fear of adversaries achieving a lasting strategic advantage and, in the case of North Korea, an external attack. Fear's centrality to the nuclear story is not only in relation to its role as a driver of proliferation. Nuclear fear has also been a key source of restraint. The most dramatic manifestation of this was the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. As I have argued elsewhere, shared fear of nuclear catastrophe led the then US president, John F Kennedy, and his Soviet counterpart Nikita Khrushchev to develop empathy and trust. This was a key factor in the peaceful resolution of the crisis. John F. Kennedy meeting with Nikita Khrushchev during a 1961 summit held in Vienna. Photo: US Department of State However, nuclear fear – and the deterrence it makes possible – is a fragile basis on which to safeguard humanity's future. The world may have avoided the use of nuclear weapons since August 1945 through a combination of prudent statecraft and good luck. But how long is it before some combination of bad luck and reckless risk-taking leads to the use of nuclear weapons once again? Russian nuclear sabre-rattling over Ukraine and the May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan, unleashing military force between two nuclear-armed states, are warnings that the ever-present threat of nuclear weapons still hangs over humanity. In the Cold War's climate of deep distrust and nuclear fear, the US and the Soviet Union at least had some shared guardrails and channels of communication. Arms control agreements agreed after the Cuban missile crisis limited superpower competition through the 1960s and 1970s. They continued to restrain US-Soviet competition in the early 1980s. Nowadays, however, arms control has all but collapsed while reliable and trusted channels of communication between major nuclear adversaries are virtually non-existent. The prospects for regulating the nuclear arms competition between Russia, the US and China are bleak. To mark the 80th anniversary of the advent of the nuclear epoch, the Nobel Laureate Assembly – a gathering of Nobel laureates and nuclear experts at the University of Chicago – warned in its 2025 Declaration for the Prevention of Nuclear War that: 'Ultimately, security cannot be built on fear.' If the bomb was born out of fear, then ensuring it is never used again requires replacing fear with trust. Ten years into the nuclear epoch, Albert Einstein and philosopher Bertrand Russell issued a manifesto signed by 11 signatories. It was created principally as a trust-building project between the East and the West. The manifesto concluded: 'We appeal as human beings to human beings: remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.' We now face the same choice the manifesto laid bare. One path leads to annihilation, the other to survival through a recognition of our common humanity. Japan gives expression to that common humanity every August when Hiroshima and Nagasaki hold their peace memorial ceremonies. Remembering the victims and those who continue to suffer from the effects of the atomic bombings, these memorials look to a future where nuclear weapons no longer exist. The nuclear bomb may have been born in fear. But only the building of trust, which may spring from that fear, can ensure it is never used again. Nicholas John Wheeler is professor of international relations, Department of Political Science and International Studies and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at BASIC, University of Birmingham This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
