Connect with us

News

Japan gears up for ‘wild west’ leadership race

Published

on

Japan gears up for ‘wild west’ leadership race

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A record number of candidates are vying to become Japan’s next prime minister, as the country confronts rising prices, escalating tensions in the Pacific and uncertainties surrounding a possible second Donald Trump presidency in the US.

The contest for the leadership of the Liberal Democratic party — which has ruled Japan for all but a few years of the postwar period — followed incumbent Fumio Kishida’s decision last month to resign after three years as he battled low approval ratings and public dismay over the state of the economy.

The unusually wide-open race kicks off on Thursday with an unprecedented nine candidates and could crown Japan’s youngest-ever prime minister or its first female leader when it concludes on September 27.

Advertisement

The size of the field attests to upheaval within the ruling bloc, analysts said, as the LDP searches for a standard-bearer who can plausibly lead the party into a general election that must be called by the end of October 2025.

“This first round will be the wild west. There are candidates that are running who know they don’t have a shot,” said Tobias Harris, the founder of political risk advisory firm Japan Foresight. “It is also an election where people who have the strongest CVs do not necessarily advance.”

The candidates include the arch-conservative former economic security minister Sanae Takaichi who has cited Margaret Thatcher as a role model; former foreign minister Toshimitsu Motegi who has been dubbed “Japan’s Trump whisperer”; outspoken former defence and foreign minister Taro Kono, who began his current stint as digital minister by declaring a war on floppy discs; and Yoko Kamikawa, the current foreign minister who ordered 16 executions during her time as justice minister.

The early favourites, according to political analysts and media polls, are former defence minister Shigeru Ishiba and Shinjiro Koizumi, the 43-year-old son of one of Japan’s most charismatic but controversial leaders, Junichiro Koizumi, who pushed Post Office privatisation and other reforms in the early 2000s.

Sanae Takaichi, Japan’s economic security minister © Toru Hanai/Bloomberg

The frontrunners face significant resistance: Koizumi because of his inexperience, and Ishiba from political enemies he has accumulated over his long career and repeated attempts to secure the LDP leadership. Senior party figures said Koizumi’s youth could also prove an advantage, as the LDP’s elite saw greater opportunity to influence his administration.

Advertisement

Whoever succeeds Kishida will face a vexing economic backdrop. While Japan is exiting decades of low growth and deflation, price rises combined with a weaker yen have weighed on household finances, while the Bank of Japan’s introductory interest rates rises last month spurred a bout of extreme market volatility.

Tokyo has also taken on a more assertive security role in the Pacific, raising defence spending and deepening co-operation with the US and other regional allies such as South Korea in the face of more hostile Chinese conduct — tensions that could be further inflamed during a second Trump term.

The leadership contest will initially be decided by a combination of LDP parliamentarians and about 1mn rank-and-file party members. If no clear winner emerges, a second round of voting, only by MPs, will choose between the two leading candidates.

At the core of the race is public exhaustion after 12 years of LDP politics, including disappointment with the “Abenomics” reforms of the country’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe, according to analysts.

While polls suggest that Japan’s main opposition party, the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, poses little electoral threat, people close to the LDP leadership said it was looking for a figure to reinvigorate the party as a force of energy and renewal. “Is there someone in the field who can make people forget their exhaustion with this government?” said Harris of the LDP’s thinking.

Advertisement

The contests will also be particularly unpredictable, political analysts said, because the party’s traditional selection mechanisms — factions controlled by influential supremos — are disintegrating in the wake of a political funding scandal.

The factions were officially disbanded under Kishida in an attempt to publicly atone for revelations of large slush funds. But in doing so the LDP eliminated an organisational force that previously winnowed the field of aspirants.

Without factions marshalling votes, ambitious candidates have been freer than at any time in the past to canvass for parliament members’ endorsements.

“The iron control of the factions is no longer there and so people within the party see this as their big chance,” said Jeff Kingston, a political scientist at Temple University. “Right now in the LDP, if you have ambitions and think you’ve earned it, you throw your hat in the ring.”

Yu Uchiyama, a political scientist at the University of Tokyo, noted that apart from divisions on issues such as the budget deficit or gender equality, none of the leading candidates had put forward a distinctive agenda or ideology, with a narrow range of positions on foreign policy and regional security.

Advertisement

Uchiyama added that the weakened factions were likely to be a temporary phenomenon. He predicted that a second round of voting by MPs would see clusters forming that resembled the old factions.

“Lots of times when the LDP declared the factions were gone, they revived,” said Uchiyama.

Others see the contest as a sign of malaise in Japanese politics as a result of the LDP’s dominant hold on the political landscape. 

“As always, the LDP leadership contest is a scam,” said Koichi Nakano, a political scientist and affiliate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. “It is a pretence that Japan gets its leaders through a democratic process, but the reality is that leaders are chosen for the country through a very narrow and tightly controlled system.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Apollo to finance UK Hinkley Point nuclear plant with £4.5bn loan

Published

on

Apollo to finance UK Hinkley Point nuclear plant with £4.5bn loan

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

US private equity giant Apollo will provide £4.5bn in debt financing to support the UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear project, in a deal that will help ease financial pressures on the flagship development.

The investment grade financing will be provided as unsecured debt at an interest rate just below 7 per cent, people familiar with the matter said.

The funding could be used for other UK projects by French state-owned electricity group EDF, but Hinkley Point is expected to be the primary target for the debt package.

Advertisement

The financing meets a key funding gap for the nuclear project, which has suffered from consistent cost overruns. It was expected to cost £18bn and to be completed in 2025 but the estimated cost has swelled to almost £46bn and its start date pushed back to 2029.

This is a developing story

Continue Reading

News

Trump Can Retain Control Of National Guard In LA, Appeals Court Rules

Published

on

Trump Can Retain Control Of National Guard In LA, Appeals Court Rules

Topline

A federal appeals court on Thursday night ruled that the California National Guard troops—deployed in Los Angeles last week amid protests against the federal government’s crackdown on immigrants—can remain under President Donald Trump’s control while the state’s legal challenge against the deployment moves forward.

Key Facts

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that on matters such as federalizing the California National Guard, any decision must be “highly deferential” towards the president, and the court concluded that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority.”

Advertisement

However, the ruling disagreed with the White House’s primary argument that such a matter “is completely insulated from judicial review.”

The appellate court ruling blocks an already paused ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer that ordered the president to “return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.”

The ruling only focused on the issue of presidential authority and did not address the claim made in Trump’s order that the protests amounted to a “form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Advertisement

How Have California Officials Reacted To The Ruling?

California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement saying, “While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government’s appeal, this case is far from over…our state and local law enforcement officers responded effectively to isolated episodes of violence at otherwise peaceful protests and the President deliberately sought to create the very chaos and crises he claimed to be addressing.” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X: “The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.”

How Did Trump React To The Ruling?

In a post on his Truth Social platform, the president hailed the ruling as a “BIG WIN,” and attacked the California Governor, saying: “The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared.” Trump then signaled he could deploy forces to tackle protests in other states, saying: “this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.”

Crucial Quote

The appeals court ruling noted that precedent from earlier rulings cited by the Trump administration, “does not compel us to accept the federal government’s position that the President could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith.”

Further Reading

Trump Keeps Control Of National Guard In Los Angeles After Appeals Court Pauses Ruling (Forbes)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: How the L.A. Port got hit by Trump’s Tariffs

Published

on

Video: How the L.A. Port got hit by Trump’s Tariffs

New York Times reporter Ana Swanson reports from the Los Angeles Port, the largest port in the Western Hemisphere as well as the place that first saw the signs of Trump’s tariff war. The Port of Los Angeles is significant because of our trade relationship with China in particular, which is why The Trump administration’s 145% tariffs on the country resulted in lower volume at the port. Ana Swanson explains what the port illustrates about U.S. trade and how what’s felt at the Port of Los Angeles will soon be felt by U.S. consumers.

Continue Reading

Trending