Japan's minority gov't faces election setback over inflation, immigration
Half of the 248 seats in Japan's Upper House of Parliament will be contested on Sunday. Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), along with its longtime junior coalition partner Komeito, need to win 50 of its 66 seats up for re-election to hold on to its majority.
But polling suggests the coalition will fail to do so, in a potential repeat of October's disastrous election, when the LDP-Komeito coalition lost its parliamentary majority in Japan's more powerful lower house – the worst result since briefly losing power in 2009.
The LDP has ruled Japan for almost all of the country's post-war history.
Inflation has been a killer issue for Ishiba, with the price of rice – which has doubled since last year due to poor harvests and government policies – becoming a lightning rod for voter discontent.
In response, opposition parties have promised tax cuts and welfare spending to soften the blow of Japan's long-running economic stagnation.
While locals face a rising cost of living, the country's weak Yen has attracted significant numbers of foreign tourists. Concerns about over-tourism and a lack of respect for local customs have fed local discontent, which has been capitalised on by upstart populist party Sanseito.
Initially launched on YouTube by streamer Kazuya Kyoumoto, politician Sohei Kamiya, and political analyst Yuuya Watase in 2019, the party rose to prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic as it peddled conspiracy theories and far-right talking points.
In the years since, Sanseito has successfully appealed to a small but growing section of Japan's electorate with its 'Japanese First' campaign and anti-immigration stance, rallying against what it describes as a 'silent invasion' of immigrants.
While foreigners still only make up a small fraction of Japan's population, at about 3 percent, the country has taken in about a million immigrant workers over the past three years to fill jobs left vacant by its ageing population.
Kamiya, the party's 47-year-old leader, said Sanseito is forcing the government to address growing concerns about foreigners in Japan, as it drags rhetoric once confined to the political fringe into the mainstream.
'In the past, anyone who brought up immigration would be attacked by the left. We are getting bashed too, but are also gaining support,' Kamiya told the Reuters news agency this week.
'The LDP and Komeito can't stay silent if they want to keep their support,' Kamiya added.
While polls show Sanseito may only secure 10 to 15 of the 125 seats up for grabs in this vote, each loss is crucial for Prime Minister Ishiba's shaky minority government – increasingly beholden to opposition parties to cling to power.
Should the LDP's seat share be eroded, as expected, Ishiba will almost certainly seek to broaden his coalition or strike informal deals with opposition parties.
But doing so with Sanseito could prove problematic for the LDP, which owes much of its longevity to its broad appeal and centrist image.
'If the party [LDP] goes too far right, it loses the centrists,' Tsuneo Watanabe, a senior fellow at the Sasakawa Peace Foundation think tank in Tokyo, told Reuters.
In a worst-case election outcome for the LDP, David Boling, director for Japan and Asian trade at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, says he believes Ishiba may be forced out of office.
'If he had an overwhelming loss, I think he would have to resign,' Boling said.
But a move such as that would unleash political turmoil, at a time when Japan is frantically seeking to secure a reprieve from Donald Trump's proposed 25 percent tariffs before an August 1 deadline touted by the US president.
Illustrating the urgency of the issue, on Friday Ishiba took a break from campaigning to urge Washington's chief tariff negotiator and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to continue talks with Japan's top tariff negotiator Ryosei Akazawa.
Following his meeting with Ishiba, Bessent said 'a good deal is more important than a rushed deal.
'A mutually beneficial trade agreement between the United States and Japan remains within the realm of possibility,' he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
43 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Thailand, Cambodia ceasefire ends days of deadly border clashes
Thailand, Cambodia ceasefire ends days of deadly border clashes NewsFeed Thailand and Cambodia agreed to an immediate, unconditional ceasefire after five days of deadly border clashes. At least 35 people were killed and 270,000 displaced on both sides. The Malaysia-brokered truce follows talks involving US and Chinese diplomats. Video Duration 01 minutes 15 seconds 01:15 Video Duration 01 minutes 13 seconds 01:13 Video Duration 02 minutes 51 seconds 02:51 Video Duration 02 minutes 47 seconds 02:47 Video Duration 00 minutes 44 seconds 00:44 Video Duration 02 minutes 00 seconds 02:00 Video Duration 00 minutes 52 seconds 00:52
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
How does Israel get away with bombing its neighbours?
How does Israel get away with bombing its neighbours? NewsFeed Israel's government seems able to act however it pleases with few consequences. But will short-term military gains outweigh regional and international isolation? Al Jazeera's Abubakr Al-Shamahi explains. Video Duration 02 minutes 47 seconds 02:47 Video Duration 00 minutes 44 seconds 00:44 Video Duration 02 minutes 00 seconds 02:00 Video Duration 00 minutes 52 seconds 00:52 Video Duration 03 minutes 59 seconds 03:59 Video Duration 02 minutes 07 seconds 02:07 Video Duration 00 minutes 25 seconds 00:25
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Kenya's protests are not a symptom of failed democracy. They are democracy
In Kenya, as in many countries across the world, street protests are often framed as the unfortunate result of political failure. As the logic goes, the inability of state institutions to translate popular sentiment into political, legislative and regulatory action to address grievances undermines trust and leaves the streets vulnerable to eruptions of popular discontent. In this telling, protests are viewed as a political problem with grievances expected to be legitimately addressed using the mechanisms – coercive or consensual – of the formal political system. Like its predecessors, the increasingly paranoid regime of Kenyan President William Ruto has also adopted this view. While generally acknowledging the constitutional right of protest, it has sought to paint the largely peaceful and sustained Generation Z demonstrations and agitation of the past 16 months, which have questioned its rule and policies, as a threat to public order and safety and to delegitimise the street as an avenue for addressing public issues. 'What is going on in these streets, people think is fashionable,' Ruto declared a month ago. 'They take selfies and post on social media. But I want to tell you, if we continue this way, … we will not have a country.' The killing and abductions of protesters as well as the move to charge them with 'terrorism' offences, borrowing a leaf from Western governments that have similarly criminalised pro-Palestinian and antigenocide sentiments, are clear examples of the state's preferred response. At the same time, there have been repeated calls for the protesters to enter into talks with the regime and, more recently, for an 'intergenerational national conclave' to address their concerns. But framing protests as a dangerous response to political dissatisfaction is flawed. Demonstrations are an expression of democracy, not the result of its failures. The Generation Z movement has shown that transparency, mutual aid and political consciousness can thrive outside formal institutions. Activists have made the streets and online forums sites of grievance, rigorous debate, civic education, and policy engagement. They have raised funds, provided medical and legal aid, and supported bereaved families, all without help from the state or international donors. In doing so, they have reminded the country that citizenship is not just about casting ballots every five years. It is about showing up – together, creatively and courageously – to shape the future. The Generation Z movement is in many respects a reincarnation of the reform movement of the 1990s when Kenyans waged a decadelong street-based struggle against the brutal dictatorship of President Daniel arap Moi. Today's defiant chants of 'Ruto must go' and 'Wantam' – the demand that Ruto be denied a second term in the 2027 election – echo the rallying cries from 30 years ago: 'Moi must go' and 'Yote yawezekana bila Moi (All is possible without Moi).' Centring the struggle on Moi was a potent political strategy. It united a broad coalition, drew international attention and forced critical concessions – from the reintroduction of multiparty politics and term limits to the expansion of civil liberties and, crucially, the rights of assembly and expression. By the time Moi left office at the end of 2002, Kenya was arguably at its freest, its spirit immortalised in the Gidi Gidi Maji Maji hit I Am Unbwogable! (I Am Unshakable and Indomitable!)' But that moment of triumph also masked a deeper danger: the illusion that removing a leader was the same as transforming the system. Moi's successor, Mwai Kibaki, hailed then as a reformist and gentleman of Kenyan politics, quickly set about reversing hard-won gains. His government blocked (then tried to subvert) constitutional reform, raided newsrooms and eventually presided over a stolen election that brought Kenya to the brink of civil war. One of his closest ministers, the late John Michuki, had in 2003 revealed the true mindset of the political class: Constitutional change to devolve the power of the presidency, he claimed, was necessary only so 'one of our own could share power with Moi'. Once Moi was gone, he averred, there was no longer need for it. Due to the obstruction from the political class, it took Kenyans close to a decade after Moi's departure to finally promulgate a new constitution. Generation Z must avoid the trap of the transition of the 2000s. Power, in the Kenyan political imagination, has often been the prize, not the problem. But real change requires more than a reshuffling of names atop the state. It demands a refusal to treat state power as the destination and a commitment to reshaping the terrain on which that power operates. And this is where the youth should beware the machinations of a political class that is more interested in power than in change. Today's calls for national talks and intergenerational conclaves emanating from this class should be treated with suspicion. Kenyans have seen this play out before. From the 1997 Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group talks and the negotiations brokered by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan after the 2007-2008 postelection violence to the infamous 'handshake' between President Uhuru Kenyatta and his rival Raila Odinga and the failed Building Bridges Initiative, each of these elite pacts was presented as a way to translate popular anger into meaningful reform. Yet time and again, they only served to defuse movements, sideline dissenters and protect entrenched power. Worse still, Kenya has a long history of elevating reformers – from opposition leaders and journalists to civil society activists – into positions of state power, only for them to abandon their principles once at the top. Radical rhetoric gives way to political compromise. The goal becomes to rule and extract, not transform. Many end up defending the very systems they once opposed. 'Ruto must go' is a powerful tactic for mobilisation and pressure. But it should not be seen as the end goal. That was my generation's mistake. We forgot that we did not achieve the freedoms we enjoy – and that Ruto seeks to roll back – through engaging in the formal system's rituals of elections and elite agreements but by imposing change on it from the outside. We allowed the politicians to hijack the street movements and reframe power and elite consensus as the solution, not the problem. Generation Z must learn from that failure. Its focus must relentlessly be on undoing the system that enables and sustains oppression, not feeding reformers into it. And the streets must remain a legitimate space of powerful political participation, not one to be pacified or criminalised. For its challenge to formal state power is not a threat to democracy. It is democracy. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
