Imperial Palace, Tokyo
According to an article of The Economist (“Banyan/ The shrinking
monarchy”, May 27, 2017), “the cabinet of Shinzo Abe, the prime minister,
approved a bill last week [May 19, 2017] to allow for the emperor’s
abdication” and “the Diet is likely to pass an abdication law next month [June 2017]”.
Under the new law His Imperial Majesty Emperor
Akihito is thought to abdicate in late 2018 with dignity (though He “is said to
have been offended when conservative scholars last year [in 2016] said he should
just stick to praying and carrying out Shinto rituals” in the pre-drafting
hearings for the “abdication” law), unlike the hapless infantile
Emperor Chûkyô, who was deposed ignominiously by rampant savage samurai subjects nearly eight hundred
years ago. (On the other hand, though the recalcitrant barons had gone so far
as to force King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, the English subjects
were lenient enough to let him remain king. In the 13th century, at least, the
Japanese may have been more republican than the English. Later, in 1688/89 even the Convention Parliament of England dared not depose King James II, but found instead the Throne already vacated.(...whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the Government and the Throne thereby Vacant...))
Unlike in Japan, where “Mr. Abe, an
arch-conservative himself on matters of the imperial family”, is now the Prime
Minister, in this age of republicanism monarchies elsewhere may be being threatened
by silent revolutions proceeding slowly with such innocent-looking legislations
as shown below.
Special
Act to the Royal House Law for the King’s Retirement, etc.
Article 1
Considering that having performed sincerely
as the Symbol of the State and of the unity of the people such official
activities as visits to various parts of the country and consolation of those
affected by disasters as well as the acts provided for in the Constitution in
matters of state for the very long period of nearly thirty years since His
Ascension to the Royal Throne on the first day of His Reign and attained more
than eighty years of high age, His Majesty King is now deeply concerned that it should become difficult for Him to continue to perform such activities by Himself as King;
Considering on the other hand that the Good
People of this country are adoring deeply His Majesty King, who has
sincerely performed such activities mentioned above into such high age,
understanding such feelings of His Majesty King as mentioned above, and
sympathizing with such feelings;
And considering that the His Highness Crown
Prince, the Royal Heir, has attained nearly sixty years of age and has been
performing diligently such official activities as the acts provided for in the
Constitution in matters of state as Delegate of His Majesty King for long time
by now;
We [, the representatives
of the Good People of this country in the National Convention assembled,] do now ordain and establish this Act [without the Sanction by His Majesty King Himself] to provide for the realization of His Majesty King’s retirement
from the Throne and of the Enthronement of the Royal Heir, as an exception of
the existing provisions of the Royal House Law, and for supplementary arrangements,
including those concerning His Majesty King’s status after the retirement.
Article 2
When the first day of the enforcement of
this Act has passed, the King shall be made [by this Act] to have
retired from the Throne [with no particular Royal Will to have been expressed] and the Royal Heir shall be made to have ascended to the Throne
immediately.
……………….
Supplementary Article 1
This Act shall come into force within three
years from the day of its promulgation, with the date of enforcement to be
determined by a Cabinet Order [, the enactment of which does not require any Sanction by His Majesty
King]. (…)
When the Cabinet Order of the precedent
paragraph is to be enacted, the Prime Minister must consult beforehand opinions
of the Royal House Council [, of which His Majesty King is not a member].
……………….
Is the above-provided king’s retirement a case of
abdication or deposition (dethronement)?
Though said to be concerned with his very
old age and accompanying fragility, the king does not seem to have expressed explicitly his will to abdicate. His ministers and the representatives of the
people, on their part, do not seem to consider the will of the king essential.
Isn’t an abdication to be based on the clearly-expressed will of the monarch to do so? When the will of the people makes the royal throne vacant through the form of democratic legislation, with the very will of the monarch playing no formal role, shouldn't it be called a dethronement?
If it is a case of abdication, the above law
can be called monarchist. (Being a human being himself, a monarch should be allowed to
abdicate when circumstances require.) If deposition (dethronement), it is rashly and rudely republican.
A rudimentary non-native user of English, however,
I cannot decide by myself by which term the above-shown royal retirement act should be titled: an “abdication” law or a “deposition” law.
Le
Roi est déposé,
Vive
le Roi!
Vive la République!
Masatoshi Saitoh, attorney at law
Taishi-Wakaba Law Office
2nd floor, Shibuya 3-chome
Square Building,
5-16, Shibuya 3-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo.
150-0002
e-mail: saitoh@taishi-wakaba.jp
Duo unicornui bene dicunt novae publicae REI VAlde! (Meijijingu-gaien, Tokyo)
弁護士ランキング