Should the Emperor be Abolished?

[Mikawa Ossan]

What do you think? There has been a lot of talk recently of amending the Constitution of Japan, so I think think is a timely topic.

The Constitution clearly states that there will be no different treatment among Japanese people based on social class, and yet the emporer is clearly special.

1) Members of the Imperial line do not have last names
2) They are supported by taxpayer yen
3) They are always refered to as "sama" (e.g. Aiko-sama)
etc.

But if you removed the emporer, what would that mean for Japan? What would a Japan sans emporer be like? Is the emporer too important for national identity to lose?

[diceke]

I think he's thought to be like a living national treasure, a relic of the past cultural richness. Japanese culture has been passed down along with the imperial line. One example: Gagaku, classical music performed at the imperial court. It's possible that some of these traditions may die out without him, so one may argue that you need him for the preservation of culture. A Japan without the emperor would be a quite different country culturally, but is it a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not sure.

[made of stone]

I'm neutral on this really, but if it helps to preserve facets of traditional Japanese culture (that would otherwise be lost) then i'd say keep the Emperor.

[yukio_michael]

My only regret about the Emperor of Japan was the lack of culpability for Emperor Hirohito for the war crimes that took place during World War II, he was spared any sort of trial due to Macarthur's aim to passify or better control the Japanese population by keeping its emperor in tact.

Many societies, Thailand, England, have grown to love their ancient, now "powerless" monarchies, and I think Japan the same does have this sort of love for the Emperor... Little things that the Princess will buy will become best sellers simply due to her fondness for it...

As for the money from the people, there are other things that Japan could do to lessen then economic burden on the people... but part of this requires them to 'wake up' again, to see that they have to discard some 'traditions...'.... in order to progress. These traditions may be entirely new, introduced during World War II, but they hold the country down, and prevent it from being what it could be.

I don't think the Emperor has a negative effect on Japanese society... so no, I don't feel that abolishing this system has much effect... I'm sure in some ways the Japanese do see the Emperor as a representation of "old Japan"... perhaps this is good, perhaps bad... for psychological purposes, the removal of this system could aid the Japanese in moving forward, but that's debatable.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Yes, the emporer is very important culturally, but do you see the inherent constitutional paradox in the existance of the emporer?

Here are some quotes:

Chapter 1
Article 2. The Imperial Throne shall be dynastic and succeeded to in accordance with the Imperial House law passed by the Diet.
Article 8. No property can be given to, or received by, the Imperial House, nor can any gifts be made therefrom, without the authorization of the Diet.

Chapter 3
Article 12. The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare.
Article 13. All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.
Article 14. All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.
(2) Peers and peerage shall not be recognized.
(3) No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it.

[JimmySeal]

One way that matters of the current imperial family have directly related to modern society is the debate over whether Princess Aiko should be able to ascend the throne since no male heirs had been born in 41 years. Unfortunately for her, the crown prince's brother had a son last September, squashing that debate. That was a bit of a loss for women's rights.

It also brought out some unhealthy nationalism and racism in Japanese people. Quoth former trade minister Takeo Hiranuma,
If Aiko becomes the reigning empress and gets involved with a blue-eyed foreigner while studying abroad and marries him, their child may be the emperor. We should never let that happen.

[KirinMan]

One way that matters of the current imperial family have directly related to modern society is the debate over whether Princess Aiko should be able to ascend the throne since no male heirs had been born in 41 years. Unfortunately for her, the crown prince's brother had a son last September, squashing that debate. That was a bit of a loss for women's rights.
It also brought out some unhealthy nationalism and racism in Japanese people. Quoth former trade minister Takeo Hiranuma,

It is rather unfortunate that for a country as large and "global" as Japan is that people like this make it into the upper reaches of government.

I think that for the country as a whole the symbolism of the Imperial family is necessary. There is so much about the culture of Japan that is attached with symbolic meanings that to remove the Emperor and the links that he symoblizes with Japanese history would not be productive.

[Mikawa Ossan]

I posit this question: Is the emperor a citizen of Japan?

[KirinMan]

I posit this question: Is the emperor a citizen of Japan?

What a great question. Does the Emperor carry a passport when he travels overseas?

[DoctorP]

I guess my question is this? What would be gained by abolishing the Emporer? How would it make Japan a better place?

[Mikawa Ossan]

Excellent question!

Throughout most of Japanese history, the emperor has had no real power of his own. However, his symbolic position has put him (or her) in a place of much importance.

Ever since the end of the Heian era, the most powerful political figure in terms of hard power has been the shogun. There is only one way to become a new shogun dynasty, and that is being appointed by the emperor. Even if you conquer the entire country militarily, you would never be the shogun, and therefore technically not in charge of the country unless appointed by the emperor. Think of Oda Nobunaga and Hideyoshi, who basically ruled Japan near the end of their lives, but never started a new shogunate. It took until Ieyasu for that to happen.

In the Meiji Restoration, the revolutionists wanted to "put the emperor back in power", but the irony is that even when the emperor did technically run the show in the Heian era (you have to go back hundreds and hundreds of years for this), he didn't actually run the show then either.

So what this means is that for most of Japanese history the emperor has been little more than a figurehead. But as I alluded to before, he was extremely important because he was the source of legitimacy for succeeding governments.

Of course the emperor rarely decided himself who to put into power, but once he did, that person was the legitimate leader de jure of the country, and everyone was under obligation to pay homage to that person or group. Although it was possible to militarily defeat the current shogun and therefore force the emporer to appoint you as the new one, looking at how rarely this actually happened gives a clue as to how valuable the title of shogun really was.

The source of legitimacy came from the emperor, and this was unquestionable. Where does the emperor obtain his legitimacy? Basically he just is legitimate by virtue of being the emporer.

That is precisely why the Meiji reformers used the emporer as a pawn to give them legitimacy towards overthrowing the then current regime. It's hard to argue with the emporer.

In the Imperial Constition, the Navy and the Army were directly responsible to the emporer and not to parliament or anyone else. Since the emporer was essentially just a figurehead, that means that unless you had powerful people behind the scenes pulling the strings of the emporer, the military was accountable to no one. Hence the trouble leading up to and including WW2.

Nowadays, the emporer obtains his position "from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power" according to the current constitution, but let's not be naive. The emporer has almost always been and continues to be a pawn in the power structure.

As in the past, the emporer continues to this day to be "above" everyone else. It continues to be unquestionable, and a huge source of nationalism. If the wrong people came to power, you can bet that the single most powerful tool at their disposal would be the emporer to change the existing power regime as has been done many times in the past.

Removing the emporer would remove this powerful tool.

**disclaimer**
The opinions contained in this post are for debate purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions.

[yukio_michael]

Yes, the emporer is very important culturally, but do you see the inherent constitutional paradox in the existance of the emporer?

Here are some quotes:We all know that in fact, all men are not created equal, and though it vexes many, we all know that those in government themselves are treated better than the rabble that is the proletariat.

I believe that not but last year there was a new member of government who got in a bit of trouble in Japan for talking about the percs he was going to enjoy as a member of the party.

[dark_secrester]

It is the same in the UK. Should we abolish the monarchy. Shorlt, I don't think so. They are a figure head, neccessary for country identification.
Don't get rid of them.

[GodEmperorLeto]

We all know that in fact, all men are not created equal, and though it vexes many, we all know that those in government themselves are treated better than the rabble that is the proletariat.
Wow.


What a great question. Does the Emperor carry a passport when he travels overseas?
This question almost prompted me to answer, "no because the Emperor is Japan." However, Louis XIV's l'etat c'est moi philosophy of rule kind of died out in recent history, so, yeah, I guess he's a citizen, even if he doesn't need a passport. I mean, he's the Emperor, after all.

As in the past, the emporer continues to this day to be "above" everyone else. It continues to be unquestionable, and a huge source of nationalism. If the wrong people came to power, you can bet that the single most powerful tool at their disposal would be the emporer to change the existing power regime as has been done many times in the past.

The tragic end to Yukio Mishima's life comes to mind, as does the rampant militarism of the 1930s. Nevertheless, I think the Emperor should be revered as a symbol of Japan, her history, and her place in the world. He is similar to the British monarch, in my opinion. He cannot effect policy, but he can still do a great deal of good as a spokesperson for his nation.

It is the same in the UK. Should we abolish the monarchy. Shorlt, I don't think so. They are a figure head, neccessary for country identification.
Don't get rid of them.
Speaking of the UK and the Royal Family, this makes me thing of Alan Moore's V for Vendetta. And I'm referring to the graphic novel, not the grotesque anti-Bush left-wing Hollywoodized propaganda movie. (Not that I like Bush, it just annoys me that hating him is fashionable.)

I'd be curious to see what a Japanese take on the graphic novel would be. Moore's work is all about the British monarchy. Sort of a Guy Fawkes-type dealie.

[dark_secrester]

I'll haveto have a look forthat, thanks GEL.

Sorry, my space bar isn't working here...

[Mikawa Ossan]

I guess he's a citizen, even if he doesn't need a passport. I mean, he's the Emperor, after all.
Actually, (and this actually IS my opinion for what it's worth), I don't think that the Emperor can be considered a citizen and maintain consistancy in the constitution.

Read the parts I quoted from the Constitution. If the emperor is indeed a citizen, do you not see an inherent contradiction?

[yukio_michael]

The tragic end to Yukio Mishima's life comes to mind, as does the rampant militarism of the 1930s. Nevertheless, I think the Emperor should be revered as a symbol of Japan, her history, and her place in the world. He is similar to the British monarch, in my opinion. He cannot effect policy, but he can still do a great deal of good as a spokesperson for his nation.Have you read "Patriotism", by Mishima?

[GodEmperorLeto]

Have you read "Patriotism", by Mishima?

Not yet. It's on my list. I've read The Sea of Fertility, and a few other things, but I really do want to read Patriotism. I just have so much other stuff to read.

[Mikawa Ossan]

Actually, (and this actually IS my opinion for what it's worth), I don't think that the Emperor can be considered a citizen and maintain consistancy in the constitution.

Read the parts I quoted from the Constitution. If the emperor is indeed a citizen, do you not see an inherent contradiction?
This is not a rhetorical question. I think it's a very important point. I can spell it out if needed, but I'm curious if you can see what I'm trying to get at here.

[KirinMan]

This is not a rhetorical question. I think it's a very important point. I can spell it out if needed, but I'm curious if you can see what I'm trying to get at here.


I would like to ask this, if he isn't a citizen of Japan than what place does he have in Japan?

In other words if he isn't a citizen than what is he?

Article 14. All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.
(2) Peers and peerage shall not be recognized.
(3) No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it.

If you are refering to these sections in your question here I would say that at least according to the constitution if the Emperor was a citizen or considered to be as one he would be in direct violation of the constitution through these sections you've quoted here.

So technically either the constitution is in error for not covering these points in regards to the imperial family or the obvious conclusion is that the Emperor is not a citizen of Japan.

Am I correct?

[Mikawa Ossan]

I would like to ask this, if he isn't a citizen of Japan than what place does he have in Japan?
In other words if he isn't a citizen than what is he? Easy, he's this:
Article 1. The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.The emporer is a tragic figure in my opinion, because essentially he has no rights at all.
If you are refering to these sections in your question here I would say that at least according to the constitution if the Emperor was a citizen or considered to be as one he would be in direct violation of the constitution through these sections you've quoted here.
So technically either the constitution is in error for not covering these points in regards to the imperial family or the obvious conclusion is that the Emperor is not a citizen of Japan.
Am I correct?
Yes, you are correct.

Whatever the emporer's legal status, it seems clear to me at least that he is not a citizen. His entire life upon assuming the throne is being the "symbol" of Japan, and everything he does is put through a microscope. Of course he lives in a microscope well before that, and the imperial household agency basically controls his life.

Do you think the emporer votes? I surely don't. Do you think he can? Even if he has the right to vote theoretically, I am completely confident that he is not allowed to do so by the imperial household agency (just a gut feeling here. I have nothing to back this up other than that.)

[GodEmperorLeto]

So what you are saying is that, in essence, the Emperor is now the slave of the Japanese people.

[Mars Man]

hee,hee,hee....I'm the only one who voted 'yes'. Although, more precisely, I'd say that it's the monarch mentality that should be abolished, that would include the acting agent and role of included under the term 'emperor'.

While I agree that there is much culture attached to such a history and mentality, I would argue that it could feasibly be detached from such system, and continue on its own as an art form--for those who are into that particular form. I'm not sure how much would be lost through such a drastic change, but feel that the long-run benefits may possibly more greatly outweigh the losses.

Of course, I'd say the same for all such systems/mentalities. The rustic and fairly non-functional systems only tend to highlight national distinctions--as I see it (only my humble opinion)--and as some may know, I am pretty much against such divisions among humankind. The fewer we have, the better.

In the same breath, I'd posit that the Japanese emperial system isn't going anywhere soon. Regarding the emperor's citizenship, I'd say he'd have to be a world citizen, like we all should be. Just my opinion, that's all. MM

[KirinMan]

I happened to have the chance to talk to a history teacher yesterday and I asked him about this. He said that the Emperor is, as others have already noted, a symbol of Japan. To their knowledge he, and the current Crown Prince, are the only two in Japan currently holding that status. The recently born baby boy who is now 3rd in line to the throne evidently will receive the same status when he becomes of age. And to their knowledge he can not vote as well, and also doesn't carry a passport either.

However the rest of the royal family, since some of them did come from among us "commoners" :p and in the case of the female children could return back amongst us, are citizens of Japan just living under special circumstances.


They were rather interested and impressed as well that this was a topic of discussion among "gaijin".

Very informative and educational topic here Mr Mikawa_Ossan, thanks.

[GodEmperorLeto]

They were rather interested and impressed as well that this was a topic of discussion among "gaijin".
Americans have historically had an interest in monarchy (and its abolishment). Even today, we have an mild aversion to the idea of royalty and use the term "dynasty" slightly negatively when we discuss political families. (We are much like the ancient Romans in that regard.)

So, I can see how the Emperor and the Imperial Family would be of interest to us, to a degree, although many Americans cannot understand the British fascination with their Royals.

I, for one, am also really interested as an historian and as someone who is very interested in political theory and national constitutions.

[storeyinallinanyways]

Could I venture that perhaps the reason that some American's don't understand the British fascination with the monarchy and have an aversion to monarchy in general is because;

a) The US doesn't have one and,
b) The US spent so long under the rule of the British monarchy that it has developed an aversion to the concept?

Maybe this is implicit in your post GEL, if so apologies!

You have to remember that the monarchy in Britain dates back hundreds of years and love for / pride in the Royal Family is almost inbuilt in British people (ok, perhaps in the younger generations less so)

These days, the younger Royals like William and Harry are more like celebrities first, royal second.

Just my thoughts...

As for the topic at hand, I am neutral on the subject too, as I am neutral on whether or not Britain should get rid of the monarchy.

My question is, does the Emperor / Crown Prince actively undertake action to preserve the culture / history of the country? If not then it may be feasible that this be separated from the office of Emperor?

[GodEmperorLeto]

Maybe this is implicit in your post GEL, if so apologies!
I assumed it was, but if it wasn't, you clarified it anyway. No harm, no foul.
My question is, does the Emperor / Crown Prince actively undertake action to preserve the culture / history of the country?
This is actually a really important thing to consider. This issue keeps reminding me of how I have to read Mishima's Patriotism, too, by the way. The emperor is no longer considered a god/demigod but nevertheless, he is an important link to Japan's history because he can be percieved as the living descendant of Amaterasu. The question is, how much influence does royalty have in politics, and what can he do?
Although he is a figurehead, there is much he can do as the voice of Japan's history, culture, and morals. He can speak publicly, and sway the opinions and ideas of the populace. This depends, heavily, on his own personal charisma, and also how seriously the government takes him, but these are all variables.

Edit: Although I linked it elsewhere, it's kind of relevant here.

The United States did have an emperor. Emperor Norton I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_the_United_States).

[SweetMusic]

You know i'm not fond of the British Royalty, but i think an Emperor is something Japan needs, I do think that a well respected Royal can help to bring the people of a country together, perticuly in times of crises. At the same time, i think the fact that the Emperor/King is more oftain that not held in importance above the common people and that in my opinion is wrong, after all an Emperor/King is nothing if he has no people to rule............sorry I'm being general.
What i mean to say is, i think that a head figure like an Emperor is important to keep the country together morally, but i think oftain there importance is blown out of proprtion.

[Pepe]

You know i'm not fond of the British Royalty, but i think an Emperor is something Japan needs, I do think that a well respected Royal can help to bring the people of a country together, perticuly in times of crises. At the same time, i think the fact that the Emperor/King is more oftain that not held in importance above the common people and that in my opinion is wrong, after all an Emperor/King is nothing if he has no people to rule............sorry I'm being general.
What i mean to say is, i think that a head figure like an Emperor is important to keep the country together morally, but i think oftain there importance is blown out of proprtion.

Ditto (minus the spelling errors :blush: )

[SweetMusic]

Ditto (minus the spelling errors :blush: )

:bluush: Sorry I'm really bad at typing and i have a habit of typing without thinking and spelling everything wrong :blush: I swear my buttons are attached to the wrong letters

[KirinMan]

Off topic reply here;

I swear my buttons are attached to the wrong letters

Really, for me I always feel like by fingers are attached to the wrong buttons.:(

On topic;

What i mean to say is, i think that a head figure like an Emperor is important to keep the country together morally, but i think oftain there importance is blown out of proprtion.

However to many Japanese people that I know the Emperor is a living link to their long and historied past. He is a welcome reminder of the rich traditions of Japan.

I hope the Emperor system here is never abolished, just updated to include women in the direct line to the throne. To do that in my opinion, would greatly increase the prestige and respect for the throne not only here in Japan but throughout the world as well.

[caster51]

he prays for ppl every day
his role is to pray, too
http://eos.kokugakuin.ac.jp/modules/xwords/entry.php?entryID=742
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E5%98%97%E7%A5%AD

[Uchite]

No indeed. The Emperor is part of Japan's history and heritage.

[caster51]

I hope the Emperor system here is never abolished, just updated to include women in the direct line to the throne. To do that in my opinion, would greatly increase the prestige and respect for the throne not only here in Japan but throughout the world as well.

i dont want new dynasty.
It means Japan give up Today's dynasty of 2600 years

[KirinMan]

i dont want new dynasty.
It means Japan give up Today's dynasty of 2600 years
Great, that's your opinion and I disagree with you, also like it or not it is a fact that there have been female emperor's before.

And not to get into an argument about it here I will just add this I hope there will be again in the future as well.

Something about this post here is like ............deja vou....seems to me like I've read nearly the exact statement here before somewhere on this forum.:okashii:

[caster51]

Great, that's your opinion and I disagree with you, also like it or not it is a fact that there have been female emperor's before.
And not to get into an argument about it here I will just add this I hope there will be again in the future as well.
Something about this post here is like ............deja vou....seems to me like I've read nearly the exact statement here before somewhere on this forum.
I welcome the female Emperor. I like it
but I dont want their kids to become the Emperor.
because male line is changed though imperial system is kept.
that is, new dynasy starts for her husband in male line.
distinguish between the female emperor and the emperor in female line
so, the female emperor is OK because she is in male line
the emperor is female line in not good

[KirinMan]

I welcome the female Emperor. I like it
but I dont want their kids to become the Emperor.
because male line is changed though imperial system is kept.
that is, new dynasy starts for her husband in male line.
distinguish between the female emperor and the emperor in female line
so, the female emperor is OK because she is in male line
the emperor is female line in not good
Let's see here, for discussion's sake only ok, let's say that Aiko-sama becomes the next Emperess of Japan. She gets married and has a male son, he becomes the next Emperor of Japan, everyone with me so far?

There is still a direct connection to the preceeding Emperors through Aiko-sama right? So he has children, let's assume that his first born is a girl as well, she assumes the throne in time the line is still connected, however not through a man but a woman right.

If one doesn't recognize her children as being a part of the same lineage then in my opinion I would think that anyone who believes that there is no longer a direct connection or lineage is being sexist.

Lineage can be followed through a woman as well as a man.

I welcome the female Emperor. I like it

Great I am glad you feel that way. , Yet the current laws regarding the "parentage" of children here in Japan,which I personally feel that they are sexist and discrimanatory towards women in general, are outdated and need to be changed to show the importance of women here in 21st century Japan.

[caster51]

If one doesn't recognize her children as being a part of the same lineage then in my opinion I would think that anyone who believes that there is no longer a direct connection or lineage is being sexist
it is called Ekisei-kakumei
Japan follws same way of Romanov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanov.
new husband line will be main stream of japanese Emperor in the future because all ppl have One male line connected from ancient.
the female emperor's kid does not need a emperor, either.
I personally feel that they are sexist and discrimanatory towards women in general
it is nothing to do with discrimination.
it is a tradition for 2600 years
even if it is myth, no one can not follow like that

[KirinMan]

it is called Ekisei-kakumei
Japan follws same way of Romanov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanov.
new husband line will be main stream of japanese Emperor in the future because all ppl have One male line connected from ancient.
the female emperor's kid does not need a emperor, either.
it is nothing to do with discrimination.
it is a tradition for 2600 years

Mmm Caster unless you may have missed it Romanov no longer exists, and it is a form of discrimination.

Historically Japan has not recognized women as being equal to men and in my opinion still lags behind the west.

[caster51]

Historically Japan has not recognized women as being equal to men and in my opinion still lags behind the west
have you ever heard Japanese women's position before Meiji Era
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1377400
1)The property is shared in Europe among married couples. Everybody owns his amount in Japan. The wife lends it to the husband by high interest at times
2)Divorcing is a crime and it is the most dishonorable in Europe
in Japan women can divorce many times, and the wife is able not to lose honor and to marry by that.
3)it is usual that a hasband make to divorce a wife because of her dirty innate disposition in Europe
4)The woman usually prepares meal in Europe.
The man makes it in Japan. And, nobles think going to the kitchen to cook to be splendid.
5)It is thought that the woman's drinking wine in Europe loses the decorum
It drinks until often getting drunk when it is a festival in Japan in the very
usualness


japan was influenced by bad one..

[EmperorHirohito]

My view is very simple, dont aboloish the Emperor just because it is Politically Correct or you think the country would be better off without one. Sometimes its best not to interfere with tradition, and Japan is a prime example as is the British monarchy. I live in a country that does have a monanrch and does help bring a lot of much needeed revenue in to this country from tourists visiting to watch our famous state occasions.

Around the world there are loads of countries that still do have constitutional monarchs and its seems as if people in those countries are quite ok with the present status quo.

So dont change, leave things alone, it may be better in the end, you never know.

[caster51]

Caster unless you may have missed it Romanov no longer exists, and it is a form of discrimination.
before that why was Romanov changed like The Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov Dynasty.
it is omen to ruin

[KirinMan]

have you ever heard Japanese women's position before Meiji Era
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1377400
1)The property is shared in Europe among married couples. Everybody owns his amount in Japan. The wife lends it to the husband by high interest at times
2)Divorcing is a crime and it is the most dishonorable in Europe
in Japan women can divorce many times, and the wife is able not to lose honor and to marry by that.
3)it is usual that a hasband make to divorce a wife because of her dirty innate disposition in Europe
4)The woman usually prepares meal in Europe.
The man makes it in Japan. And, nobles think going to the kitchen to cook to be splendid.
5)It is thought that the woman's drinking wine in Europe loses the decorum
It drinks until often getting drunk when it is a festival in Japan in the very
usualness
japan was influenced by bad one..
Caster I am talking about the 21st Century.

Hold on here a second, aren't you the one that was just talking about how much Japan does things on it's own, and now you are saying that Japan was influenced by "bad one"?

Which is it?

[caster51]

Caster I am talking about the 21st Century
it is a same even though it is in 23rd century
it is a japanese society's Identity.
if so, it would disappear 500 years ago like each shogunate ....and we dont need the Emperor
i think it is your arrogance to other culture, tradition and history.

[Mycernius]

I'm not sure, but if the Japanese emporer has the same sort of status as the British Queen then the title and position must be kept. It is a case of not what they can't do, but the powers they do hold that keeps it out of the hands of the politicians. The monarch in the UK is non-political.
Incidently when the US became independant and the war was over congress did try to make George Washington a King. He refused and the US remained a republic. As for the UK, we tried republicanism once and we didn't like it. Cromwell became king in all but name and once he was gone we decided to bring the monarchy back.

[KirinMan]

i think it is your arrogance to other culture, tradition and history.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for not understanding my point.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Incidently when the US became independant and the war was over congress did try to make George Washington a King.
There was talk of that, but I am not sure how serious it was. Most of the people here were too heavily influenced by John Locke to grant him supreme executive power, and at best it would have been a constitutional monarchy.

As for Emperor Norton, well, Congress and the U.S. military pretty much ignored his just and lawful claims.

As for the UK, we tried republicanism once and we didn't like it. Cromwell became king in all but name and once he was gone we decided to bring the monarchy back.
Cromwell wasn't quite a republican leader. If the United States was Lockesque, Cromwell's Puritan government was most certainly Hobbesian. Most American textbooks consider him a dictator.

[Mycernius]

Essentially he was a military dictator. He wielded more power than a monarch, which is probably why parliment offered him the crown. As a king his powers would have been more restricted. He is still hated by the Irish and I don't really blame them.

[Sukotto]

interestingly, just last night on the Daily Show the guest was some guy from BBC and he had written a book on the British monarchy.

while not necessarily advocating for its existance, he had this interesting point about the monarch: the monarchy is a sort of national symbol. having this prevents politicians from attempting to become one themselves.

***my vote?***
i have decided i do not care one way or another if another group of people decide to have a symbolic figure such as emperor or queen. some countries elect a president for this while at the same time have a prime minister. if i am not mistaken, East Timor's president is like this, largely symbolic.

[EmperorHirohito]

Sukotto thats a very valid point, a monarch can do a great deal to prevent a left wing or extreme right wing politican from becoming too powerfull, and no monarch would want to be replaced by a jumped up politican.

[GodEmperorLeto]

A monarch could also function as a voice of the people. Because of his position, he is poised to deliver advice and suggestions, as well as admonitions, to the government. If the government ignores the monarch, it could find itself without any support come the next election, with a lot of incumbents getting replaced because they didn't heed the monarch's words.

Then again, if the populace is totally apathetic, nothing the monarch says will do any good anyway.

[Sukotto]

Sukotto thats a very valid point, a monarch can do a great deal to prevent a left wing or extreme right wing politican from becoming too powerfull, and no monarch would want to be replaced by a jumped up politican.


then in that same Daily Show segment the guy said the queen was inheriantly undemocratic.
on the one hand such a position is an office of the past, a cultural icon, with absolutely no power what-so-ever today, what harm could it do to keep around?
on the other hand they are supported by the tax payers.


but i don't really get the "cultural icon" or tradition thing?
the tradition of a dictator?
why would anyone want to keep such an archaic concept as dictator alive?

[GodEmperorLeto]

the tradition of a dictator?
why would anyone want to keep such an archaic concept as dictator alive?

Pol Pot. Pinochet. Adolf Hitler. Mao Zedong.

It is alive and well. The concept will exist as long as there are polities.

[kiedistidus]

if the emperor is anything like our royal family i.e a tax robbing-racist-snob then yes please do abolish him as i wud give my left arm to see queen elizabeth and her band of fox hunting idiots blasted into space!!! sorry i get so worked up when it comes to the monarchy.

[Haivart]

A monarch is a symbol of unity, and like any person, can be good or bad. The King of Thailand is a very good monarch and does much for his country--that is part of his duty, as well as being a symbol.
Question: Why does the descent have to follow the male line? In many cultures, it's the female line that's important. And as for the Romanovs, are you sure they were Romanovs?

[GodEmperorLeto]

Question: Why does the descent have to follow the male line? In many cultures, it's the female line that's important.
It was in Egypt. They were matrilineal. That's why the Pharaoh had to marry his sister. Ewww.

[Haivart]

Incorrect. Egypt was that way because pharoah was considered a god. A woman was not supposed to be a Pharoah.

I was thinking of Navaho, actually. In many older cultures, property and identity follow the female line.

[highlight]

I can't see the justification for abloshing the Emperor and its part of the Japanese culture to have a noble symbol and one from a pure and noble family.

[Arch]

I don't see any reason to get rid of the Monarchy in Japan. It is completely and tottally powerless. The British Monarchy is also as "powerless" if you talk about Political power. However the British Monarchy still carries British pride high on its shoulders.

Japan is defintely not so, however getting rid of it would be hugely insulting to it's history and culture

[raven_guest]

I haven't read the whole thread (sorry if I repeat anything) but our Queen (I'm a Brit) is damn near useless, her husband offends anyone he meets and the whole family is a waste of space, but they do wonders for our tourism. I think it is similar in Japan, there is an interest in Monarchs and I feel the Emperor is an interesting part of Japan. I don't know to what degree he has power anymore though (our Queen doesn't really have any)

[justin]

I would say no since the Emperor is such a big part of Japanese culture.

[Sukotto]

Pol Pot. Pinochet. Adolf Hitler. Mao Zedong.
It is alive and well. The concept will exist as long as there are polities.

I did not say it was not around any where.
Just questioning why would one want to glorify the concept, structure, or system of dictatorship? Which is essentially what a queen/king or empress/eperor are.

I also happen to disagree that dictatorship systems will always exist.
perhaps we can agree to disagree on that one

[caster51]

Japanese Emperor(Tenno);

1)There is no power though there is an authority.
The successor cannot be nominated by himself.
Even if it is possible to demand, it is not possible to order it.
However, Only the emperor can attest the person in paramount authority.

2)The luxury cannot be done.
He has little income.
It is not possible to expend it freely.
He doesn't know how much property there is.

3)there is no free at all.
It is not possible to travel except official business.
He cannot schedule it by himself.


The emperor is poor.
Even if the emperor can endure it, the empress will not be able to endure it.

[GodEmperorLeto]

2)The luxury cannot be done.
He has little income.
It is not possible to expend it freely.
He doesn't know how much property there is.

Hmm... This is actually somewhat distressing. So, what you are saying is, that in the modern economy, the emperor's position doesn't even afford him an income? This makes me wonder how all of those European monarchs are so rich these days.

3)there is no free at all.
It is not possible to travel except official business.
He cannot schedule it by himself.
The emperor is poor.
Even if the emperor can endure it, the empress will not be able to endure it.
That's a shame. But, then again, I don't remember reading much about emperors traveling during the earlier historical periods (ex. Nara period, Muromachi period, etc). They mostly were cloistered in the capitals back then, too, I thought.

[caster51]

Tenno does not have self-interest at all.
His job is to Pray for peace....
I think It is culturally World Heritage. :p
It is necessary to defend World Heritage.


1)There is no power though there is an authority

No one can become a dictator because of this division of labor system.
The emperor can temporarily keep power even if becoming an anarchy.
It is possible to move to the following system smoothly by returning power
after a new government starts.

anyway , he is working as Japanese diplomat more than 1000 diplomats

BTW

I think Emperor is Japanese the ultimate weapon .
What of Japan do foreign country scare ?
It is to unite under the emperor again though I think it is a illusion.
that is why the foreigner is sensitive to the nationalism of Japan.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Incorrect. Egypt was that way because pharoah was considered a god. A woman was not supposed to be a Pharoah.
Dunno how I missed this, even if it was months ago.

How is what incorrect? I said Egypt was matrilineal, it was. And there were women Pharaohs. Yes, Pharaoh was a god, but the office of deified ruler was still transmitted through the female line. The Pharaoh married his sister, and it wasn't because it was fun. It was because that's how matrilineal society works. A god upholds tradition, he doesn't overturn it (Akhenaten not withstanding, all his reforms were immediately overthrown upon his death).
I think Emperor is Japanese the ultimate weapon .
What of Japan do foreign country scare ?
It is to unite under the emperor again though I think it is a illusion.
that is why the foreigner is sensitive to the nationalism of Japan.
A hatred of kings and despots can also be a powerful weapon. Look at France during the Revolution. The crowned heads of Europe were terrified because the French wanted to spread their brand of democracy across the continent and abolish nobility and kingship everywhere.

[caster51]

A hatred of kings and despots can also be a powerful weapon. Look at France during the Revolution. The crowned heads of Europe were terrified because the French wanted to spread their brand of democracy across the continent and abolish nobility and kingship everywhere

Ｉ think a King is deffrent from Emperor.
Emperor has no self-interest at all.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Ｉ think a King is deffrent from Emperor.
Emperor has no self-interest at all.
What? Do you mean your current emperor? Or emperors in general? Because I can list Roman emperors, Chinese emperors, and emperors from other nations who exhibited a great deal of self-interest.

Please. Emperor is basically king with bigger pretensions. They are both despots whose rule is based on absolute authority. And if you are claiming that the Japanese emperor is unique historically because no Japanese emperor ever expressed self-interest... I don't even know where to begin to express how naive you are being.

If you want to talk about rulers signifying the embodiment of a nation, Louis XIV did it long before Meiji. And, unless I am mistaken, nationalism and the position of the Emperor as a symbol of nationhood both emerged in Japan about 250 years after Louis said, "L'etat, c'est moi."

[caster51]

If you want to talk about rulers signifying the embodiment of a nation, Louis XIV did it long before Meiji. And, unless I am mistaken, nationalism and the position of the Emperor as a symbol of nationhood both emerged in Japan about 250 years after Louis said, "L'etat, c'est moi."

Ok, I think Japanese Tenno is deffernt from other emperor like Louis XIV and Japanese king like shogun.

shogun before Louis XIV was symbol of nationhood both emerged ...like Iza kamakura
many shogun said something like "L'etat, c'est moi"

[scorpion da black]

the emperor is a symbol of japan just as the queen of great britan is a symbol of england..........

the emperor should be repected and should continue...it is a heritage the japanese should be happy to have....the meperor was thought to be a living god..........of course now that sounds inconvinient....but the emperor is like an identity of japan.........

[Sparky]

The emperor is just a symbol of Japan. Much like England, Thailand, and many other countries, they are mainly symbols. People always bring up debates about this figures, but why? Every country has symbols. America puts up monuments like the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore (Is that right) as a symbol for there country. Symbols are an important aspect of any culture why destroy a good thing?

[deathtokanji]

Give him a nice gift basket to thank him for his......trouble........then send him away.:wave:

[TwilightMoon777]

Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but what exactly is the Emperor of Japan's job, and how much power does he have?

[scorpion da black]

Excuse my ignorance on this subject, but what exactly is the Emperor of Japan's job, and how much power does he have?

all he does is just be there just like the queen of england
he no longer is considered sacred...and his word isnt a devine order as it was belived in japan:okashii:

[TwilightMoon777]

If that is the case....then why keep him around? :? I say get rid of him if all he is going to do is look nice, and sit on his butt.

[suz135]

No, he's a part of their history, culture, and also national pride. When the emperor makes an appearance, there are always many people there to support him.