The United States has a much higher crime rate than Japan. While the US population is about 2.6 times larger, it recorded 17.2 times more murders in 2019 – 16,425 compared to 950. Needless to say, Japanese tend to enjoy a sense of safety that undoubtedly contributes to our national happiness. So, on July 8, 2022, when former Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzō was assassinated at a campaign rally, our world was shaken.
But such violence and lawlessness are incompatible not only with Japanese society; they are anathema to any healthy democracy. And it fits into a wider trend. In January 2021, the US witnessed its own shocking act of political violence, when supporters of then-President Donald Trump – at Trump’s urging – stormed the US Capitol, in an effort to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory the previous November. There could be no more blatant attack on US democracy.
One might be tempted to dismiss the Capitol riot as a radical act by a relatively small group of extremists – a few thousand out of a population of 300 million. It would be even easier to minimise Abe’s assassination. After all, it was committed by a single gunman with a highly personal motivation: he blamed Abe, who had ties to the Unification Church, for his mother’s financial ruin. His mother was a devout member of the Church, and she had continued to donate to it – donations that the gunman claims were forced – until the family went bankrupt.
But in both the US and Japan, the perpetrators of political violence have found sympathisers. The US Capitol insurrectionists have a large base of support, as a significant share of US Republicans – even candidates in the recent midterm elections – still believe the “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. It is a short leap from holding that belief to cheering those who aim to “right” the imagined wrong.
Some American cultural narratives can also feed vigilantism. The US Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” because a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state.” This guarantee has not only been interpreted to prevent the introduction of reasonable gun-control laws; it has also nurtured the belief that taking up arms against the government is perfectly reasonable. The ironic result is an assault on “the security of a free state.”
In Japan, there has also been sympathy for Tetsuya Yamagami, Abe’s assassin. Yamagami’s family had, indeed, suffered profoundly, and no one should ever be compelled to donate to a cause. There is also a cultural tie here. One of the most popular Kabuki plays – Kanadehon Chūshingura (“Copybook of the Treasury of Loyal Retainers”) – depicts the story of 47 master-less samurai exacting their revenge on the man who had driven their master to suicide. The samurai were executed for their vigilantism, though they come across as the heroes of the story.
To be sure, Yamagami’s act will be fairly and strictly judged under Japanese law; it must not bring down Japan’s political system. And in the US, the recent midterm elections showed that the power of Trump and his Big Lie has been weakened significantly, with Trump-backed candidates performing far worse than expected. As a result, while the Republicans won a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, it was the worst midterm election performance for a party not in control of the White House in a generation. US democracy lives to fight another day.
But the fact that the US has narrowly escaped capture by would-be authoritarians does not mean the threat to democracy has passed. Trump is planning his 2024 presidential bid, and there is no reason to think that, if he gains momentum again, the rest of the Republican Party will not fall back in line. Although the congressional January 6 Committee, which was charged with investigating the Capitol riot, recommended that Trump and his allies be barred from holding office, Republican opposition means that the recommendation is unlikely to be heeded. In any case, Trump has plenty of imitators within the party.
The conventional wisdom, particularly in liberal circles, is that the arc of history always bends toward peace, tolerance, equality, justice, and democracy. But, as recent assaults on democracy have shown, there is no room for complacency. Those acting in their own self-interest, or in the name of an unjust, bigoted, or otherwise dangerous cause, will always try to resist. Progress must be driven by ideas, developed through political processes, and ultimately enshrined in institutions and policies.
Elections alone are not enough. Even under fair election rules, voters may choose a leader who blocks or reverses progress – say, by pursuing a policy agenda that benefits one group at the expense of another. From rolling back anti-discrimination protections to changing tax rules, elected leaders who are so inclined have no shortage of ways to perpetuate inequality. Progress, in all its forms, must be nurtured through the relentless efforts of the people.
As Japan and the US have learned firsthand, acts of violence can shape politics. But, if our democracies are to survive, such acts must not be allowed to do so in the ways their authors want.
Koichi Hamada, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Yale, was a special adviser to Japan’s prime minister. This content is © Project Syndicate, 2023, and is here with permission.
31 Comments
Elections alone are not enough. Even under fair election rules, voters may choose a leader who blocks or reverses progress
Gee, I'm glad we don't suffer from anything like that over here.
In any case, the language in this article bothers me. Democracy isn't about "choosing a leader". It's about choosing policy and direction. The politicians are only there to execute their mandates according to the will of the people. Any "leader" is only there to lead the party, not the country.
How many people do you believe vote on policy?...id suggest his assessment is closer than your own...those that bother to vote in democracies are typically voting with their gut rather than any rational assessment of policy implications, even if they have the wherewithal to correctly assess those implications (not withstanding the deliberate deception and policy u turns)
"January 6th" isn't new, as this article seems to imply. Go back a few years, and perhaps we'll see it is just an extension of what started some time ago.
The presidential election of 2000 stands at best as a paradox, at worst as a scandal, of American democracy. Democrat Albert Gore won the most votes, a half million more than his Republican opponent George W. Bush, but lost the presidency in the electoral college by a count of 271-267. Even this count was suspect, dependent on the tally in Florida, where many minority voters were denied the vote, ballots were confusing, and recounts were mishandled and manipulated. The choice of their leader came not from the citizens of the nation, but from lawyers battling for five weeks. The final decision was made not by 105 million voters, but by a 5-4 majority of the unelected U.S. Supreme Court, issuing a tainted and partisan verdict. The election of 2000, however, will not fade. It encapsulates the political forces shaping the United States at the end of the twentieth century. Its controversial results will affect the nation for many years of the new era.
Yes indeed and that is hardly a one off either. 1876 Rutherford got over Tilden by highly dubious machinations so much so as president he was known as Rutherfraud. Way back the election of Jefferson over Burr probably provided the sufficient precedent. The main difference about 2020 was that this time a Democrat prevailed and aside from all the usual flak & cluster, it was as legit as it could be.
This is a pretty shallow piece of little value. If you get to this comment before reading the article, then don't waste your time, it is someone writing just for the sake of writing something rather than nothing.
Democracy is an illusion, it always has been. It is just a nice story we tell ourselves to make us feel in control. But control is a verb, it requires active participation and not the abrogation of responsibility by a single act every 3-4 years.
It is also a political system that deals in handouts. Only works on the way up, when there is plenty to hand out. We've done these handouts by borrowing for the last 40 years, at least. We are now in a place in history where the ability to deliver on promises is in a trend, a shrinking one. The Truss/BOE event a few months ago was a pivotal point there.
In regard guns, they too are meant to be matched with active interest and participation. A necessary part of the process. They protect against hoodlums from above, and below. This means being observant to the trends of both.
Really? A US partisan political opinion piece from a Yale professor. I'm all for economic and geopolitical "op-eds" that are partially relevant from a NZ perspective but the internal struggles of the US intelligentsia on if Trump should run again seems a bit niche.
I think most of us are more mature and advanced in our understanding of elections than this:
Elections alone are not enough. Even under fair election rules, voters may choose a leader who blocks or reverses progress
(We understood this and fixed it with MMP and 5% ages ago)
Yes, Many of the 70 million voting for Trump were keen on reversing their plight since the "progress" of 70,000 factories sent to China, and putting up a wall to stop the invasion from the south. Polling in Central America has shown 50 million would move to USA if given an opportunity, and President Biden has been giving them that opportunity.
Now we learn that for the 2022 year only 7% of 30,000 families who had their day in Asylum Court were determined to be true Asylum Seekers, yet Biden is allowing millions per year to flood the country on that false premise. Many are single men-so you can just guess the number of true Asylum Seekers amongst that group. Democrats didn't want the Border Barrier up because it was proving to be too effective.
America's poor communities bear the brunt of this flood as resources are diverted from native born American's to "Asylum Seekers". Schools, Rents, and drug crime are all effected by tens of thousands of new arrivals to the poorest parts of major cities. But that is what many call "progress"--that's why there is such a divide in the USA. January 6th was bad, but this is a fraud being perpetrated on the America people by the current power clique. Almost all of these Year 6 equivalent educated migrants will never earn enough and will be a perpetual ward of the state when it comes to housing and health care subsidies. Few would ever be admitted as legal immigrants going through the standard immigration procedures. Try arriving at LAX with no papers!
The illegals spread nationwide. They and their labour are wilfully exploited. One of Trump’s golf courses near our old neighbourhood did so until he became president. Be that as it may, it seemed to me that both the southern border wall and the endeavour to rein in dependency on China and return manufacturing to the homeland were sensible and necessary.
There is a difference between refugees and/or asylum seekers and the broad characteristics of an illegal migrant. But your point is neither unfair nor inaccurate. Trouble is how far back do you begin to nail down who exactly were the first indigenous people. There has been though, since before recorded time, mass intercontinental migrations for any number of cause or purpose. Each time, each location an indigenous people play host willingly or unwillingly. Paul Johnson covers this in his History of the American People in that time, centuries of it, eventually evens it all out. Hard for any one generation to form an informed view of overall consequences in their relative short life experience.
Again, don’t entirely disagree but if you are saying that the relative circumstances, that concern you here are unique, then I do disagree. The bad behaviour you decry is nothing new is it. Whether it be Romans, Visigoths, Huns, Mongols humans have conquered, vanquished or simply spread and taken land from others for century over century. Ok it’s unjust, unfair, ungodly if you like, and fine single out and condemn a segment of history in which you have a fleeting involvement, but you need to face up to the reality you can neither change that history nor prevent its repetition.
No 19th Century immigrant was a drain on the purse of the government as are the millions crossing the border today. Reason there are standards for legal immigration is so that does not happen, and as a 20th Century former sponsor of an immigrant I had to prove I could provide so that they the sponsored immigrant wouldn't end up on government aid.
As far as native Americans When my forefathers were moving into former territory of Native Americans there were only 40,000 in an area the size of New Zealand, and up until 1862 when the Federal Government fell behind during the Civil War the Federal Government was making annual payments as prescribed in 1851 Treaty obligations.
Millions coming in and if Australia they would end up on Christmas Island. Stats prove only about 7% are true Asylum Seekers--rest are economic migrants crashing the border.
True and how on earth do you identify let alone authenticate the indigenous people. It seems to be more or less those that were already there at the time when explorers and then settlers arrived and that includes invaders too. As such are the Celts the indigenous people of the British Isles, vanquished by Romans, then Saxons then Normans. And in New Zealand there were human inhabitants who were similarly vanquished on the migration of the Maori. It produces a rather awkward set of questions if to delve back too far in time doesn’t it.
... the exact opposite of a drain on federal resources ... immigrants have been America's strength , bringing many cultures , innovations , cuisines ... not to mention , bringing millions of strong young workers ...
Silly old Trumpy shouldve welcomed the poor & huddled masses at the border ...
This is standard stuff from Yale these days. Never in human history has one educational institution had so much influence on so many, for all the wrong reasons. They teach bollocks & you can do go deeply into debt to be 'educated' by them.
All successful civil societies have the functional nuclear family at its heart. If everyone's a weirdo then look out.
What garbage. There have been plenty of crappy ones that have had boners for 'the nuclear family' too. The Americans, for instance, are quite happy to have you die from a curable disease on the street or be murdered in adolescence in a school shooting. The Brits were quite happy to stick children in workhouses and rampant petty crime met with punitive capital punishment or transportation. We have a hard time drawing a line at how difficult the basic act of housing and providing shelter for your family should be.
Neither of these is a mark of a 'successful' society IMO. Peeing your pants over 'weirdos' or talk-back level complaining about 'wokeness' ("Oh no, the gays want to be treated like people") is the sort of patch-protection inwards-facing lack of empathy that provides fertile grounds for the collapse of nations and civilisations, not the act of acknowledging different people exist.
Democracy as an illusion?....not really, it provides a legitimate (thats crucial) opportunity to remove undesired leadership without the necessity of revolution.
You may think that unimportant but I would suggest that every revolution (civil war) avoided is a plus for the masses.
"Democracy" can be duped and manipulated in many ways. I have witnessed it at local body level.
Leaders are choosen, but not often by the people. Present day leaders of the G20 countries have enjoyed the benefit of being positioned and supported (in many ways) by interest groups. The most prominent of which is the World Economic Forum and there so-called "Young Global Leader" indoctrination programme. Almost every "leader" today can be traced to their programme, including our own "leader".
The public are offered a choice already prepared for them.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.