Page:Constitutional imperialism in Japan (IA constitutionalim00clemrich).pdf/51

which was only an amalgamation, was dissolved into its original elements. In 1900 Ito’s new party, the Seiyukai, of which the old Liberals formed the nucleus, was suddenly called on to form a Ministry, which was also short-lived. These attempts at party government seem to have been premature; but they served to indicate the trend of events. Moreover, as Uyehara puts it, concerning the first attempt, “its real importance lies in the fact that it had completely disposed of the prejudice that a person directly connected with a political party could not become a Cabinet minister.”^[1] The second Saionji and the Yamamoto ministries were strongly “party cabinets”; and Okuma’s is still more so, albeit it is also “personal cabinet”, in which Okuma is indisputably “Premier”.

And this is a reminder of one of the peculiar features of Japanese political parties. That is the personal element by which factions and parties have rallied around men more than measures, persons rather than principles. This feature is, of course, a survival of the feudal system, as has been pointed out by Ozaki (now Minister of Justice) in an article in a magazine called Shinseiki (New Century). He said: “The fact is that the majority of our politicians are still subject to feudal notions. Their attitude to the president of a party is precisely that of the retainers of a daimyo to their lord.”

Another peculiarity is that party ties are loose and party principles are indefinite. Individuals do not find it difficult to shift allegiance from one party or faction to another, often without sacrificing their principles, if they have any! This is largely due to the indefiniteness and generalities of party platforms, or the lack of positively distinguishing principles separating parties. For instance, the same party has been found, according to circumstances, either in support of or in opposition to an increase of the land-tax. Okuma and Ozaki, now “in”, have put through the army increment scheme, which they vigorously opposed, when “out”; and they do not mind the charge of inconsistency. They seem to agree with Emerson that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.