Right Winger: It’s Right for Former IF to Return to IF to carry on Tradition

 

The abstract of this article is as follows:

 

-The Japanese Imperial Family is the oldest royal family in the world, and therefore the most prestigious royal family in the world.(laughs)

-The Emperor/imperial family is recognized for its value in leaving behind a person who will carry on the tradition.

(Therefore, the succession to the throne by male lineal descendants should be preserved.)

(And therefore the return of male lineal descendants of the former IF to the IF is justified.)

 

Note: The blogger does not agree with the above.

 

Recently, "return of former members of IF to IF" has become a keyword in this blog.

Although I am not in favor of this idea, the Japanese government, with the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) as the governing party, seems to be moving in that direction. Since there is only one direct successor to the throne, Prince Hisahito, it is said that the return of the former members of IF to the Imperial Household is essential to maintain the stable succession of the throne to the male line, which the far-right, the supporters of the LDP, insist on.

 

So, although I'm not too keen on it, I'd like to introduce the (somewhat ridiculous) argument of the "male chauvinists" who form the basis of this keyword. This is because it is unlikely that intelligent English-speaking readers will have much opportunity to come into contact with the claims of the "male lineage" faction.

 

Incidentally, the author of the following article, Mr.Mitsuru Kurayama, is one of the "three major neto-uyo (means online right-winger) theorists" in Japan.

 

 

 

Misconception that Reversion to IF is "Discrimination Based on Family Origin"/ Mitsuru Kurayama

1/31 Weekly SPA!

 

Materiallistically, IF is Most Powerful Diplomatic Card

 

During the Heisei era, the Imperial Family continued to be "IF that walks with the people. Whenever there was a disaster, His Majesty the Emperor rushed to the scene and encouraged the people, knee-to-knee. To put it simply, the Emperor of the Heisei era was a "friendly father. Do the people not take this image of IF for granted?

 

Lately, I wonder if people have mistaken His Majesty and His Highness for celebrities or something. The openness of IF has turned into the over-openness of IF. Some people are even saying, "It would be fine if IF were to disappear.”

 

　Let me put it bluntly. IF is the most powerful diplomatic card in the world. In the international community, the older the history, the higher the rank, without question. Japan has a nominal history of 2,682 years, which is at least 1,500 years of uninterrupted history, no matter how you look at it. IF has consistently existed in Japan.

 

 

Few Countries Have ever been Happy with the Destruction of a Royal Family.

 

　Incidentally, the second oldest royal family in the world is in Denmark. In Japan, it is nominally 1,100 years old, in the sense that all the legends in "Kojiki" are recognized as historical facts. Japan's IF has an overwhelming tradition in the world.

 

If you want to say, "Why don't we just get rid of IF?" then you should prove the positive meaning of getting rid of IF.

 

In the history of the world, there have been few countries that have been happy with the destruction of their royal families. Only Turkey, which overthrew the Ottoman Empire in a coup d'etat, barely. However, Kemal Pasha, the founder of the Republic of Turkey, took the Meiji Restoration as a model and displayed a portrait of the Emperor Meiji in his office. This is an exception among exceptions.

 

The reason why we want to keep the Imperial Family is because we recognize the value in it.

 

On the contrary, whether it was the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution, it was a bloody mess and the people were thrown into hell. In Cambodia, the king himself abolished the monarchy, but it led to a genocide by Pol Pot, killing 25% of the people, and after much reflection, the monarchy has now been restored.

 

There is a king, and that is enough to stabilize a country. In Japan, it was the emperor who recognized the winner of a political battle. Whether it was the Genpei War or the Warring States Period, the victor sought the Emperor's approval. In the history of Japan, no matter how chaotic the world gets due to warfare, at the end of the day, conflicts end with the Emperor's approval. Because there is an umpire, the killing (game) is over. In Europe, where kings, emperors, and popes are all players, the battle will not end until it reaches its end.

 

But should we keep the Imperial Family because "it is a diplomatic card" or "it will stabilize politics"? Certainly, those are important reasons, but they are not absolute. To put it another way, if those are the only reasons, if it does not function as a diplomatic card, if politics is stable without the existence of the Imperial Family, is it okay to abolish it?

 

After all, the reason why we want to keep the Imperial Family is because we recognize the value in it.

 

We recognize the value of leaving behind a legacy of tradition.

 

In the history of Japan, there have been many powerful men who have threatened the emperor. Soga, Fujiwara, Taira, Minamoto, Hojo, Ashikaga, Hosokawa, Miyoshi, Oda, Toyotomi, Tokugawa. None of them, however, abolished the imperial family. They held the supreme power in politics, but they indulged in the "existence recognized by the emperor. What are the reasons? For one thing, the Imperial Family gave up its own power and chose to reign as an authority, transcending from politics.

 

For one thing, it was more convenient for him to keep the Imperial Family to stabilize his power.

 

　Another reason was that he recognized that the emperor was a descendant of the god who created Japan. In short, they recognized the value of preserving an existence that would carry on the tradition.

 

For convenience, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary cabinet system are used as models.

 

Incidentally, this principle is still alive today. The model of modern politics is the British parliamentary cabinet system. It is a system in which the prime minister is the supreme authority under a constitutional monarch. Scandinavian and Benelux countries, in other words, ordinary countries, have a parliamentary cabinet system under a constitutional monarchy. Dictatorships like China and Russia are out of the question, while presidential systems like the US and France are unique. Even countries without kings, such as Germany and Italy, go out of their way to have a parliamentary cabinet system under a "symbolic president.

 

Since Japan has a constitutional monarch, the Emperor, it was not difficult to accept a parliamentary cabinet system.

 

In countries with a presidential system, the head of the executive power doubles as the head of state. Even the President of the United States does half of his work in ceremonies. In countries with a parliamentary system of government, on the other hand, the constitutional monarch, who is the highest authority for conducting ceremonies, and the prime minister, who is the head of the executive branch, are separated. The constitutional monarchy and the parliamentary system of government are regarded as models because they are convenient in many ways, and some countries have even gone to the trouble of introducing a "symbolic presidency.

 

Misconception that reversion to the Imperial Family is 'discrimination based on family origin

 

I have lightly, and only lightly, given reasons why it would be more convenient to retain the Imperial Family, but there are people in the world who really want to destroy the Imperial Family. There are some people in the world who really want to destroy the Imperial Family, such as malicious foreigners who are frustrated that Japan has the most prestigious Imperial Family in the world. Some people may think so, and some people may argue without knowing that "bending there would mean changing the history of the Imperial Family. Aside from people with bad intentions, if it is a misunderstanding, we have no choice but to politely unravel it. Now, here is an example of a misunderstanding.

 

The government held an "expert panel on the succession to the throne" and submitted a report to the Diet. The content of the report is that the descendants of the Eleventh Imperial Family, who were forcibly stripped of the imperial register by the GHQ, should be given the proclamation of the throne. In other words, they will be allowed to live as members of the Imperial Family, which is their original status.

 

There are those who oppose this, saying that it is discrimination based on family status, which is prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution. The reason is that it is discrimination against other citizens to make a person who is now living as an ordinary citizen a member of the Imperial Family.

 

If ordinary citizens are not allowed to become royalty, what about women?

 

Indeed, the Japanese Constitution prohibits the aristocracy. This is the prohibition of discrimination based on family background. Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates equality under the law from the viewpoint of respect for human rights, and one example of this is the prohibition of discrimination based on family origin. The Imperial Family, however, is an exception to this rule. All textbooks on the Japanese Constitution state that the emperor and the imperial family are exceptions to human rights. In practice, too, the emperor and the royal family are not citizens. This is only natural, since the Japanese Constitution recognizes the Imperial Family in Chapter 1.

 

If ordinary citizens are not allowed to become members of the royal family, what about women? Her Majesty the Dowager Empress was Ms. Masada, Her Majesty the Empress was Ms. Owada, and Her Imperial Highness Princess Higashinomiya was Ms. Kawashima. Even under the current law, it is allowed for ordinary citizens to become members of the Imperial Family.

 

　In the first place, the former members of the Imperial Family were supposed to be born into the Imperial Family. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Let us proceed with the discussion calmly.