Rashomon & Japanese Politics Metaphorically Compatible?

First thing's first, it would be best if I were to introduce a little background of these two concepts I am pondering on. A 1950's Japanese film entitled Rashomon directed by Akira Kurosawa which was based on Ryunosuke Akutagawa's short story In a Grove. The film simply revolves on a story of a crime (rape and murder) committed with a bunch of witnesses (including the suspect himself) giving testimonies incosistently on what had happened in the scene of the action. The other is more of a broad concept which some people would think has nothing to do with the former, Japanese Politics. Yes! You heard me right... Japanese Politics. Well, one might say that rape and murder does happen in politics in some countries but definitely I have not heard of any issues regarding those in Japanese Politics. But come to think of it after watching the film, there is this question that keeps on bugging me; who is telling the truth among those witnesses? Now that is something I could relate to Japanese Politics, though not necessarily the truth but its concept!

Truth, a word that can be defined in many ways. Another word that I want to introduce that would compliment and help in understanding it is perspective or views whatever you want to call it for the reason that I want to define truth in connection with what I have mentioned above. Truth depends on the perspective or views of individuals in a certain event. Like what happened in the film, no objective truth really came out. Objective in a sense that no actual facts of what had happened really appeared. It also means that although truth differs on how people see it they are in fact, plausible.

Okay enough with the "Rashomon" truth. So what does it got to do with Japanese Politics? Metaphorically speaking, it is the different ways on how we look and understand Japanese Politics. I have stumbled upon a review of the book entitled The Postwar Japanese System by William K. Tabb in which it says that the metaphor of Rashomon is applicable in understanding the politics, history and culture of Japan. I tried to compare and somehow integrate it with the books entitled Japanese Political History Since the Meiji Renovation by Richard Sims; Structure and Policy in Japan and United States by Peter F. Cowhey, Mathew Daniel; Japanese Political Culture by Takeshi Ishida; and Institutions, Incentives and Electoral Participation in Japan by Yusaku Horiuchi. So I came up with a conclusion that maybe Japanese Politics can be understood in the perspective of Japan's history, culture and even through comparison with other politics like that one of United States. Though each perspective would definitely result to a different understanding of Japanese politics, the point is they arrive with actual facts.

On the other side, its concept can also be applicable on the side of the politicians and bureaucrats themselves. Their actions and the arguments they give with regards to state matters for instance. In the case of the Liberal Democratic Party and Democratic Party of Japan; their perspectives manifested in their arguments with regards to governance of the country and the status quo differ with each other although both are indeed plausible or acceptable. Even though they view things in a different way, their aim still coincide in one point which is the development of Japan.

So it is important not to let our ways of seeing things be narrowed down for it will definitely hinder us from seeing larger realities.





P.S : Nosebleed! Am I coherent? >_<

Japan, an Incomplete Puzzle?

Sooo JAPANice! Really?!

"Small but terrible. Definitely a force to be reckoned with."

Those are the first few words that comes into my mind when talking about Japan. A simple explanation yet packs a lot of meaning. Most, if not all of us, have this view of Japan as a great, strongly developed country with great people living within its borders. Unimaginable and humongous infrastructures anywhere you look , strong economy and citizens culturally living a life of respect, discipline and honor. In fact, according to J.A.A. Stockwin in his book entitled Governing Japan, people say Japan generally speaking, is sui generis or unique in layman's term. For foreigners specifically Westerners, this "uniqueness" creates the impression that it is impossible to understand the aspects (culture, economy, history, politics, etc) of Japan with the use of Western style of analysis in which of course I do not believe. Instead, I like how Mr. Teehankee defined this uniquely "unique" characteristic of Japan. According to him, it is based not only on what is mentioned above (infrastructures, culture, people) but it is the country's ability to adapt something from other foreign powers and turn it to something theirs in such a way that it will look like they are the initiators of it. It seems unbelievable and unexplainable but they have proven it is possible. Yes, Japan is unique but just to some extent though it is convincing enough that this broad characteristic makes the country an intriguing subject to study. Despite what people say, Japan as a whole is not perfect. It is like other countries having their own flaws and vulnerable in making mistakes (not to mention the ongoing recession).

Giving focus to the political framework, isn't it shocking to know that from nothing, Japan rose to be one of the strong and prosperous country in the world? What kind of political system they have been employing for the past decade up to now that contributed to their success? In connection with what I have said above, even political scientists which are considered specialists in the field of politics are unable to completely grasp and comprehend the political system of Japan even its political system is not really so different from others. What more for non political scientists like us? What ways can we employ to better understand its politics?

"Comparative Politics" a Better Means of Understanding Japan's Politics?

Since the issue here is revolving on politics, the more specific term of comparison would be helpful which is Comparative Politics. According to Todd Landman, author of the book entitled Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, comparative politics can be defined as a systematic study of political systems of different countries which aims to provide better understanding of political phenomena and come up with possible predictions which can aid in decision making (judgments) in the future. To make it simple, it acts as a safety net and a learning tool for the government. Through comparative politics, countries are able to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Comparison can also result to new ideas and information which may be of great help in improving the system. For instance, maybe we could also find out how the LDP successfully ruled the government for many years through comparative politics. I really think that comparing Japan's politics with other political systems would give it a clearer identity because as mentioned, its political system is no different from the others. Definitely Japan is worth comparing with other countries because it is a good model of a strong country, at the same time some of its aspects has still much to improve on like politics.

"A part of Japan is still a mystery which is yet to be unraveled."