Abstract
This chapter analyzes collective deliberations regarding the opposition parties’ counterproposals (to government proposals) put forward regarding the Security Laws as to whether questions from members of the same party increase acceptance of the proposal’s rationale. The analysis revealed that asking questions of the party to which one belongs, and answering them, took the public interest into account by addressing their constituents’ concerns. In other words, the question was really addressed to the voter rather than to the questioner. It was also found that questioning allies encouraged answers based on reason and evidence, especially the case with opposition members questioning other opposition members that encouraged constructive deliberation. It should be noted, though, that opposition members do not submit counterproposals to all bills, as there are limits to their ability to do so. These results have implications for multi-person communication. For example, asking a close colleague in a meeting “What is your intention?” can lead to a response increasing audience persuasiveness. Not only in parliamentary questioning, but in all meetings, questions from people who are close to one’s own ideas will lead to an increase in support for one’s arguments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The House of Representatives (2003) Committee Precedents Book no. 80 states that “when several bills have the same purpose or are related, they shall be placed on the agenda together and examined.” Similarly, House of Councillors (1998) Committee Precedent Book no. 54 states that “when it is necessary for the convenience of examination, several bills shall be placed on the agenda together and examined” and that “when several bills to be examined by the committee are in counterpart, related in content or otherwise, and when it is necessary for the convenience of examination, they shall be placed on the agenda and examined together.”
- 2.
Cox and McCubbins (2005) point to “positive agenda power” i.e., placing bills on the agenda that are favorable to the majority, and “negative agenda power” that removes bills from the agenda, unfavorable to the majority. Not placing opposition member legislation on the agenda can be viewed as an example of negative agenda power.
- 3.
The seven criteria are (1) who has the authority to conduct proceedings in plenary sessions, (2) government prerogatives regarding budget-related bills, (3) precedence of the House over committees, (4) the authority of committees to amend bills, (5) who has the authority to conduct proceedings in committees, (6) elimination of obstructions to proceedings, and (7) continuity of bills.
- 4.
Although reverse questions are not permitted in the Diet, there was an instance in the 126th session of the Diet (1993) when the Special Committee for the Investigation of Political Reform approved the Board of Directors allowing the mover to ask a questioner a reverse question (Mukoono, 2002).
- 5.
In this book, public interest is defined as the general good of the citizenry.
References
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Sage.
Cox, G., & McCubbins, M. (2005). Setting the agenda. Cambridge University Press.
Döring, H. (1995). Time as a scarce resource: Government control of the agenda. In H. Döring (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 223–246). St. Martin’s Press.
Feldman, O., Kinoshita, K., & Bull, P. (2015). Culture or communicative conflict? The analysis of equivocation in broadcast Japanese political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(1), 65–89.
Fenno, R. F. (2000). Congress at the grassroots: Representational change in the south. The University of North Carolina Press.
Fenno, R. F. (1973). Congressmen in committees. Little Brown.
Franklin, M., & Norton, P. (1993). Questions and members. In M. Franklin & P. Norton (Eds.), Parliamentary questions (pp. 108–113). Clarendon Press.
Fukumoto, K. (2000). The Diet politics in Japan. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai. (In Japanese).
House of Councillors. (1998). House of Councillors committee precedents. Secretariat of the House of Councilors. (In Japanese).
House of Representatives (2003). House of Representatives committee precedents. Shueikai. (In Japanese).
Igarashi, T. (1994). Legislation by a member of the Diet. Sanseido. (In Japanese).
Illie, C. (2006). Parliamentary discourses. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 9, 2nd ed., pp. 188–197). Elsevier Science Press.
Iwai, T. (1988). Legislative process. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai. (In Japanese).
Kawato, S. (2005). Japan’s Diet system and party politics. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai. (In Japanese).
Kawato, S. (2008). Legislative outcomes in the divided Diet. Journal of Law and Political Science, 72(4), 505–536. (In Japanese).
Kinoshita, K. (2015a). Cognitive differences between video and textual information of parliamentary deliberations: An empirical analysis based on political communication theory. Leviathan, 56, 117–138. (In Japanese).
Kinoshita, K. (2015b). Bicameral theory: Administrative monitoring function and democracy. Shinzansha. (In Japanese).
Lijphart, A. (2012). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
Martin, S. (2011). Parliamentary questions, the behaviour of legislators, and the function of legislatures: An introduction. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2011.595120
Masuyama, M. (2003). The parliamentary system and Japanese politics: The quantitative politics of proceedings. Bokutakusha. (In Japanese).
Masuyama, M. (2021). The Japanese Diet: Parliamentary groups and lawmaking. In R. J. Pekkanen & S. Pekkanen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese politics (pp. 75–99). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190050993.013.50
Matsumoto, S., & Matsuo, A. (2010). Why do Japan’s lower house members speak in committees? Political parties, legislators, and electoral systems. Japanese Journal of Electoral Studies, 26(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.14854/jaes.26.2_84. (In Japanese).
Matsumoto, S. (2014). Development of a communication strategy by the congressional leadership and the 2012 congressional elections. In T. Yoshino & K. Maeshima (Eds.), Post-Obama American politics: The 2012 presidential election and the fragmented politics (pp. 125–158). Toshindo. (In Japanese).
Mayhew, D. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. Yale University Press.
Miyashita, T. (1993). Deliberations on the consumption tax abolition bill and other legislation from the perspective of parliamentary research organization. In M. Nakamura (Ed.), Research on member legislation (pp. 485–505). Shinzansha. (In Japanese).
Mukoono, S. (2002). The House of Representatives: Its system and mechanism. Toshindo. (In Japanese).
Musashi, K. (2006). Trends and problems in recent Japanese legislation. The Hokkaido Law Review, 57(1), 371–399. (In Japanese).
Musashi, K. (2016). The efficiency and representativeness of Diet deliberations: How should Diet deliberations be changed? The Hokkaido Law Review, 66(5), 301–326. (In Japanese).
Nonaka, N. (2016). Why is there no debate in the Japanese policy process? (In Japanese). In N. Nonaka & H. Aoki (Eds.), The Diet without policy meetings and debate: The establishment of the prime minister’s office-led regime and backward deliberation (pp.147–190). Asahi Shimbun. (In Japanese).
Polsby, N. (1975). Legislature. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 5, pp. 257–320). Addison-Wesley.
Prokcsch, S. O., & Slapin, J. (2015). The politics of parliamentary debate: Parties, rebels and representation. Cambridge University Press.
Rozenberg, O., Chopin, O., Hoeffler, C., Irondelle, B., & Joana, J. (2011). Not only a battleground: Parliamentary oral questions concerning defense policies in four Western democracy. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(3), 340–353.
Sánchez de Dios, M., & Wiberg, M. (2011). Questioning in European parliaments. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(3), 354–367.
Sellers, P. (2010). Cycles of spin: Strategic communication in the U.S. Congress. Cambridge University Press.
Sone, Y., & Iwai, T. (1987). The Diet’s roles in policy-making process. The Annals of Japanese Political Science Association, 38, 149–174. (in Japanese).
Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. (2004). Deliberative politics in action. Cambridge University Press.
Tani, K. (2003). Empirical studies of member legislation. Shinzansha. (In Japanese).
Tsukiyama, H. (2012). Multi-layer structure of policy positions: The constitutional revision issue in Japan. Public Choice Studies, 57, 46–58.
Ueda, A. (1995). Revitalization of legislation by members as one of the items of parliamentary reform. The Review of Legal and Political Sciences, 31, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.20816/jalps.31.0_74. (In Japanese).
Ueda, A. (2005). 55 years of legislation by members of the Diet. Shinzansha. (In Japanese).
Vliegenthart, R., & Walgrave, S. (2011). Content matters: The dynamics of parliamentary questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies, 44(8), 1031–1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011405168
Wiberg, M. (1995). Parliamentary questioning: Control by communication? In H. Döring (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 179–222). St. Martin’s Press.
Wiberg, M., & Koura, A. (1994). The logic of parliamentary questioning. In M. Wiberg (Ed.), Parliamentary control in the Nordic countries: Forms of questioning and behavioural trends (pp. 19–43). The Finnish Political Science Association.
Yamaguchi, J. (1993). Basic perspectives on congressional reform. In M. Nakamura (Ed.), Research on member legislation (pp. 43–53). Shinzansha. (In Japanese).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kinoshita, K. (2023). Questions from Allies Play a Role in Supporting the Government. In: Japanese Politicians’ Rhetorical and Indirect Speech. The Language of Politics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4295-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4295-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4294-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4295-4
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)