Japan votes in key upper house election as Prime Minister Ishiba faces possible loss
Voters were deciding half of the 248 seats in the upper house, the less powerful of the two chambers in Japan's Diet. Early results were expected Sunday night.
Ishiba has set the bar low, wanting a simple majority of 125 seats, which means his Liberal Democratic Party and its Buddhist-backed junior coalition partner Komeito need to win 50 to add to the 75 seats they already have. That is a big retreat from the 141 seats they had pre-election, but media surveys predict big setbacks for Ishiba.
A poor performance on Sunday would not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file no-confidence against a leader, but it would certainly deepen uncertainty over his fate and Japan's political stability. Ishiba would face calls from within the LDP party to step down or find another coalition partner.
Soaring prices, lagging incomes and burdensome social security payments are the top issues for frustrated, cash-strapped voters. Stricter measures targeting foreign residents and visitors have also emerged as a key issue, with a surging right-wing populist party leading the campaign.
Sunday's vote comes after Ishiba's coalition lost a majority in the October lower house election, stung by past corruption scandals, and his unpopular government has since been forced into making concessions to the opposition to get legislation through parliament. It has been unable to quickly deliver effective measures to mitigate rising prices, including Japan's traditional staple of rice, and dwindling wages.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
What's next for Japan after far-right election surge?
Shigeru Ishiba and his coalition need to cobble together a new majority to stay in power (Image: AP) Japan's coalition government led by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba lost its parliamentary majority in Sunday's election after large gains made by right-wing populist parties, in a sign that right-wing populism and polarization are now also undermining political stability in Japan. For now, Ishiba has vowed to hang on as prime minister, despite the second election debacle in nine months. His Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) lost a snap election last October, making it a minority party ruling with a coalition. Ishiba has said he would "humbly accept" the result and "continue to take responsibility for national affairs." However, Ishiba's continuation as prime minister no longer depends on him alone. A strengthened opposition could topple him at any time with a vote of no confidence, even if these parties are not united enough to forge a governing coalition themselves. Ishiba also faces the threat of a rebellion within the LDP, which has governed Japan almost continuously for 70 years and has always controlled at least one chamber of parliament. Conservative LDP heavyweight Taro Aso has said he "could not accept" Ishiba as prime minister. However, potential successors appear to be staying under cover for the time being. "Nobody wants to replace Ishiba in these difficult times for the LDP," political scientist Masahiro Iwasaki from Nihon University in Tokyo told DW. Japan's ruling coalition barely misses The ruling coalition of the LDP and the Buddhist Komei Party missed its self-imposed target of retaining a majority in the upper house of parliament, with 125 of 248 seats up for reelection. The coalition missed by only three seats, which was an unexpectedly close result. The LDP is now likely to try to win over some independent MPs to its side. Even if this succeeds, the government is still on shaky ground. One of Ishiba's options would be to expand his governing alliance. However, the major opposition parties have already declared that they would not enter into a grand coalition. Apparently, they doubt that Ishiba will remain prime minister and LDP leader in the medium term. This leaves the 68-year-old politician with the option of selective cooperation with individual opposition parties, which he has been doing since losing his majority in the more important lower house at the end of October. However, this will not succeed without painful concessions, for example, on tax issues. Before the election, Ishiba rejected opposition demands for a reduction in VAT on food. Instead, he promised every citizen a cash payment of 20,000 yen (€116/$135) by the end of the year to compensate for the loss of purchasing power due to high inflation. Japan's right-wing surge According to Japanese media, the LDP's election debacle comes as many voters are dissatisfied with the three-year decline in real wages caused by high inflation, along with a sharp increase in foreign workers and tourists. Two young, right-wing populist parties benefited the most from this, but the largest opposition group, the constitutional democratic party of former Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, hardly benefited at all. The Sanseito party, which is only five years old, increased its number of seats in the upper house from two to 14 and the Democratic Party for the People from nine to 17. The Sanseito party went into the election campaign with the openly xenophobic slogan "Japanese First" and has accused the government of pursuing a "policy of concealed immigration." The number of foreign residents in Japan grew by 10% in 2024 to just under 4 million. The Sanseito Party claims that recruiting foreigners as workers to address an ageing and shrinking population will disrupt Japan's social harmony. Founder Sohei Kamiya has said his party has been modeled after Germany's far-right alternative for Germany (AfD) party, and other European far-right parties. The democratic party for the People, with its charismatic leader Yuichiro Tamaki, is now the third strongest force in the party system, which lends political weight to its main demand for tax cuts. "Both right-wing parties were able to capitalize on the anger of the younger generations towards the political system," analyst Tobias Harris told DW, citing percieved gerontocracy, inflation and stagnant wages as key factors.
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Are Trump's tariffs the new sanctions?
US president Donald Trump US President Donald Trump's reliance on tariffs rather than sanctions has been described as both the "world's worst bet" and "a powerful proven source of leverage" to protect the national interests of the United States. While tariffs essentially are taxes on imports to protect domestic industries, sanctions are penalties imposed on other countries to punish or influence their governments. Sanctions typically put restrictions on trade or finance. S ince his return to the White House in January, Trump's tariff threats against dozens of countries have created great uncertainty among US businesses and global trading partners. What's become known as "tariff tango" — bold pledges of steep duties on foreign goods, followed by abrupt reversals — suits Trump's shifting political or economic goals. Yet, financial markets remain on edge, not knowing how or when the president may deploy tariffs next. The tariff on China, the biggest economic and military rival to the US, reached historic highs in April, soaring to 145per cent before being significantly cut the following month after trade talks in London. Trump's sudden increase and later rollback of tariffs show how he uses them as a flexible way to fix what he sees as unfair trade, based on past trade disputes. "What shapes the president's views is the rapid rise of Japan in the 1980s, and the feeling that the Japanese were out-competing the iconic American car industry because the US has been too generous in its trade terms," Jennifer Burns, associate professor of history at Stanford University, told DW. Tariffs suit Trump's 'America First' vision Tariffs are Trump's preferred weapon to tackle the massive US trade deficit, particularly with China, which amounted to $295 billion (€253 billion) in 2024, according to the US Census Bureau. They also align with his "America First" agenda to protect domestic industries and boost US job creation. The White House has defended the president's approach, insisting that tariffs can be quickly deployed and, unlike sanctions, don't completely shut foreign markets to US firms. "[Trump] can add this pressure when he wants and then bring it back when markets start to freak out or it stops serving his purpose," Sophia Busch, associate director of the Geoeconomic Centre at the Atlantic Council think tank, told DW. "This is much easier with tariffs than with sanctions." Although tariffs have been widely criticized for their potential to stoke inflation, they do raise revenue for the US Treasury, unlike sanctions. US tariff revenues are up 110per cent to $97.3 billion in the first half of the year, compared to the same period last year. Tariffs are expected to raise $360 billion next year, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Trump sees tariffs as more flexible, easier to deploy Tariffs give Trump direct, unilateral control, using executive orders without needing approval from the US Congress. Sanctions, on the other hand, often require complex legal frameworks and cooperation with international partners, like the European Union. The preference for tariffs over sanctions reflects Trump's aim for rapid, visible economic leverage, but raises concerns about the destabilizing effects of such policies on global trade and peace. "The reason [tariffs] have such a bad reputation is because they're linked to these episodes of de-globalization, and in the 20th century, they were linked to armed conflict," said Burns. "If low tariffs and open markets knit countries together in a way that forestalls armed conflict, does it mean that we might be moving away from that?" Trump blurs the line between tariffs and sanctions "Sanctions are more about punishing countries for violating international norms," Stanford's Jennifer Burns told DW. "They're in response to specific actions, and if those actions cease, the sanctions can be undone." Trump's second-term policies suggest he is using tariffs to achieve objectives typically associated with sanctions, such as pressuring countries like Canada, Mexico and China on nontrade issues like immigration and drug trafficking. These tariffs have prompted retaliatory measures or threats, which have intensified global trade tensions. Similarly, Colombia was threatened with tariffs after it rejected US deportation flights, while threatened levies on the European Union were partly announced as a response to EU privacy and climate regulations. Earlier this month, Trump threatened to impose a 50per cent tariff on imports from Brazil, which were framed as retaliation for the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally. The far-right politician faces trial for allegedly plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 election loss, including plans to assassinate political rivals. Noting how the uncertainty around Trump's tariff policy had left US firms and global trade partners reeling, Burns warned that "years of tariff uncertainty" may cause a "serious economic slowdown, as businesses and investors wait for a more predictable landscape." Russian energy buyers face secondary sanctions Previous US administrations have preferred sanctions over tariffs as a punitive tool to bring rogue countries into line. Since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the US has imposed more than 2,500 sanctions on Russia, targeting individuals, entities, shipping and aircraft. The US has also imposed sanctions on Venezuela, Iran and North Korea. "These economies are not crucial trading partners for the US," the Atlantic Council's Busch said, adding that Trump's tariffs on the "top US trading partners" were "more of an economic threat domestically." Trump has recently expressed more openness to deploying sanctions. Referring to a bill proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham for additional penalties on Moscow if it fails to negotiate a peace deal in good faith with Kyiv, Trump said he was "very strongly" considering fresh sanctions. If passed, the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 will target key Russian officials and oligarchs, financial institutions and the energy sector, aiming to curb Russia's ability to export oil and gas. The bill, which has bipartisan support, also proposes secondary sanctions on third countries and foreign companies, which Trump has termed "secondary tariffs" of up to 500per cent on countries importing Russian energy. Trump's similar "secondary tariffs" of 25per cent on buyers of Venezuelan oil, which took effect in March, were also designed to pressure energy importers to align with US foreign policy, a role typically reserved for sanctions. Secondary sanctions usually include blacklisting individuals and entities, asset freezes and banking restrictions. The threat of US criminal charges and travel bans is also often used.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
UK, Canada and 26 other countries urge immediate end to Gaza war
LONDON: Twenty-eight countries including Britain, Japan and a host of European nations issued a joint statement Monday saying the war in Gaza 'must end now' the latest sign of allies' sharpening language as Israel's isolation deepens. The foreign ministers of countries also including Australia and Canada said 'the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths." They condemned 'the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food." The statement described as 'horrifying' the recent deaths of over 800 Palestinians who were seeking aid, according to the figures released by Gaza's Health Ministry and the U.N. human rights office. 'The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity,' the countries said. 'The Israeli government's denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable. Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law." Israel and U.S. reject the criticism Israel's Foreign Ministry rejected the statement, saying it was 'disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas.' It accused Hamas of prolonging the war by refusing to accept an Israeli-backed proposal for a temporary ceasefire and hostage release. 'Hamas is the sole party responsible for the continuation of the war and the suffering on both sides,' Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein posted on X. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also rejected the statement from many of America's closest allies, calling it 'disgusting' in a post on X and saying they should instead pressure the 'savages of Hamas.' Germany was also notably absent from the statement. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul wrote on X that he spoke with Israeli counterpart Gideon Saar on Monday and expressed the 'greatest concern about the catastrophic humanitarian situation' in Gaza as Israel's offensive widens. He called on Israel to implement agreements with the EU to enable more humanitarian aid.
