The Structure of 'Genro vs. Democracy (Interest-Group Politics)' Re-emerging in Japanese Politics

Recently, observing the movements surrounding Diet member Kitamura of the Japan Conservative Party and Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly member Kaori Sato, it seems that an old structure is rising again.
It is the conflict structure between 'Genro (those who prioritize national order and governance)' and 'democracy (interest-group politics by the majority)'.

■ The Weakness of 'Majority = Democracy' Seen in Current Politics

Whether before or after the war, Japanese politics has often been driven by a 'loud majority' that moves the system. However, today, a structure has become prominent where a 'momentary majority' formed by social media relies on emotions and popularity rather than policy to form groups and surround politicians.

As a result,

• the prevailing mood is prioritized over policy consistency

• the maintenance of vested interest structures is rephrased as 'public will'

• politicians are chased by 'responding to online backlash' and 'managing supporters' rather than improving the system

problems like these are occurring.

■ Diet Member Kitamura's Remarks and the 'Lifespan of a Political Party'

Diet member Kitamura stated,

In other words, it is a cold-blooded point that
'a political party that moves by the emotions of the majority cannot survive for long'
.

Parties that prioritize 'mood, mobilization, and popularity' over a policy foundation are indeed historically short-lived.

■ The Case of Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly Member Kaori Sato

The case where Assembly member Sato appealed on X that she was 'being treated like a suspect politically and finding it difficult to even participate in the assembly' also shows a part of the same structure.

'Minority bashing' via social media outweighs political rationality, and emotion is prioritized over the system. This is truly
the runaway of interest-group democracy, and it is also a denial of politics based on the legal system.

■ The Need for 'Winning Politicians' Even Among the Minority

However, the essence of politics is not just to defend the majority.

What is required of politicians is
'a strategy to win even as a minority'
, and that is something politicians who used 'law' as a weapon have historically achieved.

For example,

• pointing out unconstitutionality

• unearthing institutional contradictions

• pursuing administrative inaction

• logically proving the infringement of citizens' fundamental rights

Regardless of how much the majority is driven by public sentiment, these can become 'winnable battles' as long as there is a legal basis.

In an era where democracy is becoming a 'tyranny of the majority,'
it is always the minority that moves institutions and changes history.

And there is only one way for the minority to win—
to move politics through logic based on the Constitution and the legal system.

Substack article here (English):