Political priorities on both the ruling and opposition sides slow down moves to implement the first revisions of Japan's Constitution.

`If the constitutional amendments become a focal point of contention in the next election, it would just be what the Liberal Democratic Party wants.'ICHIRO OZAWA Minshuto heavyweight

The drive to revise the Constitution is losing momentum thanks to a shift in strategy by the largest opposition party and second thoughts by the prime minister.

Revision debate was expected to be on a political agenda as early as next year. But in a turnaround from its emphasis on constitutional debate during the Upper House election in July, opposition Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan) plans to focus on pension and other social security issues-a sore spot of the ruling coalition-in the next Lower House election.

``Our focus in the next two to three years will be a change of power,'' said Minshuto leader Katsuya Okada on Oct. 31. ``Debate on constitutional revisions can move on, but carrying them out will be an issue in the future.''

Minshuto made major advances in the Upper House election on the strength of its attacks against the government's unpopular pension reforms.

Ichiro Ozawa, former acting leader of Minshuto, earlier advised Okada: ``If the constitutional amendments become a focal point of contention in the next election, it would just be what the Liberal Democratic Party wants'' to evade attacks on pensions.

The largest opposition party plans to delay specific revision moves until after the next Lower House election, to take place within three years.

Another wet blanket on the LDP-led constitutional-revision moves has been provided by none other than Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who last year suggested the party come out with a revision draft in autumn 2005 on the LDP's 50th anniversary.

The prime minister, however, has apparently turned cautious, perhaps out of consideration for more pressing issues.

During Diet debate in October, Koizumi stressed that the government will not link the debate on constitutional amendments with Japan's bid to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

He has also made clear that Tokyo will cooperate with the global realignment of the U.S. forces ``within the framework of the Constitution and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.''

``If he proposes amending the Constitution now, no progress is expected on pressing policy issues,'' said a government source. ``His pet opinion is one thing and the reality is quite another.''

Revision advocates within the LDP have envisioned the first-ever amendments to the postwar Constitution ``in three years at the earliest,'' as Taro Nakayama, an LDP member who heads the Lower House's Research Commission on the Constitution, said.

The constitutional research panels of both houses of the Diet are slated to wind up their five-year discussions and come out with final reports during next year's regular Diet session.

The LDP planned to make legal preparations for a national referendum on amendments on the basis of the reports while compiling a draft revision proposal by November 2005.

LDP advocates also hoped to win over like-minded members of Minshuto to secure ``two-thirds or more of all the members of each House'' required to initiate amendments under Article 96.

While Minshuto began to keep its distance from the move, junior coalition partner New Komeito, which basically defends the Constitution's pacifist Article 9, is also growing more cautious.

``With a Lower House election in the offing as a contest for a change of power, it would be difficult for the LDP and Minshuto to cooperate on this issue,'' said New Komeito leader Takenori Kanzaki.

The LDP and New Komeito are wide apart over Article 96 as well as Article 9.

At a meeting of the Lower House research panel in late October, LDP member Yoji Nagaoka criticized conditions set by Article 96 as ``too strict.''

Akihiro Ota, who chairs a New Komeito panel on amendments, argued, however, that given the gravity of the issue, the article's strictness is ``appropriate.''

While revision debate has been under way in the Diet panels and elsewhere for almost five years, there is still a deep rift between the LDP and other parties, including New Komeito, in their views of the nation's basic set of laws.

The most fundamental difference lies in the question: Who is this Constitution addressed to?

Modern constitutions are regarded as sets of rules the people force upon the state to restrict its power. In other words, the state-from the emperor, Cabinet ministers, Diet members, judges and all other public officials as stipulated in Article 99-is obliged to respect and uphold the Constitution, not individual members.

The Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party take this stand.

The LDP, however, argues the Constitution spells out rules that members of the public are obliged to abide by. Minshuto remains divided on this point.

Over Article 9, which renounces the use of force as a means of settling international disputes, the rifts are more complicated. The LDP and Minshuto have much in common in calling for a change in the pacifist article.

Most LDP members support Japan's right to possess fighting capabilities for self-defense. Some even call for allowing collective self-defense to better respond to Washington's call on Japan for greater security roles.

The current government position is that the Constitution bans Japan's exercising the right to collective self-defense.

Minshuto, meanwhile, puts priority on international cooperation under the United Nations' initiative. The party is divided over collective self-defense.

Although New Komeito has agreed to submit Article 9 to ``cautious'' discussion, its basic position is to maintain the article and oppose exercising the right to collective self-defense.(IHT/Asahi: November 9,2004)