The Taishō Democracy

1589 Words4 Pages

The militarization of Japanese society during the 1930s and 1940s was total and absolute. Military rule dominated nearly all aspects of life, from politics to education, a shift that seems incongruous with the democratic attitudes that defined the preceding Taishō era. However, this shift was in fact not so radical; rather, militarism progressed naturally out of the rapid modernization that Japan had undergone in the decades prior, and the fundamental values that formed the basis of the Meiji Revolution and Taishō democracy would continue to power Japan’s war engine through World War II.
A key defining characteristic of pre-occupation Japan was the sacred, central role of the Emperor. In fact, this attitude toward the Emperor existed even before …show more content…

Building on this apparent contradiction, Andrew Gordon describes the Taishō democracy as an “imperial democracy” (164), a term that is strikingly appropriate for both meanings of the word “imperial.” In one sense, Japan continued its imperialism abroad, particularly with regards to “defending” its Asian neighbors: Kita Ikki states dramatically in his Outline Plan for the Reorganization for Japan that Japan, as “the noble Greece of Asian culture,” should “lift the virtuous banner of an Asian league and take the leadership in the world federation that must come.” In the other sense, Japan was still very much enthralled with the idea of Emperor as ultimate sovereign; in Democracy as Minpon Shugi, Yoshino Sakuzō is careful to define the term “democracy” as minpon shugi, where the people serve as the basis of democracy, rather than minshu shugi, where the “sovereignty of the nation resides in the people.” In his article, he claims that popular sovereignty is “inappropriate to a country like [Japan]” and that to “think that democracy and the monarchcial system are completely incompatible…is a serious misconception.” More interesting, however, is his unquestioning acceptance of the role of the Emperor; to him, not only is it “unthinkable that it should become necessary, ‘in the interest of imperial family,’ to disregard the interest of the people,” but that “it is the determination of the Japanese people to willingly go through fire and water for the sake of the emperor.” That …show more content…

Though some anti-militaristic sentiment had existed, “it was certainly not the majority sentiment even at the peak of postwar internationalism” (Gordon 179). As the economic boost of World War I wore off, Japan was hit by a series of crises, including the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 and a major banking crisis in 1927 (140), that would create cracks in its political structure. With the New York stock market crash of 1929, Japan’s already “stumbling” (142) economy was now “paralyzed” (182). In response, people were “disgusted with the ineffective response of the established political parties” (182) and, backed by now suspicious views toward sexually liberated modern girls and vocally communist university students, a “belief that Japanese society faced unprecedented crisis” gripped the nation. Hope would come in Ishiwara Kanji’s fateful invasion of Manchuria. He argued in his Personal Opinion on the Manchuria-Mongolia Problem that not only is “making Manchuria-Mongolia into [Japan’s] territory…a just action,” but that the economic impacts of doing so would “solve the problem of food supplies for our people…[and] enable us to break out of economic depression.” He would then take matters into his own hands, and orchestrate an explosion that his army would use as a pretext for invading the area (Gordon 189). True to his word, the economy soon grew dramatically,

Open Document