Talk:Meiji Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
Japan To-do:
|
|
[edit] Prior constitution
I would dispute the point made in the article that prior to the Meiji constitution there was no written constitution in Japan. The Yōrō Code from the mid eigth century (the latest of the ritsuryō codes) certainly should qualify as a constitution under most definitions. However, the old classical constitution had become largely irrelevant by the time of the Meiji restauration, with the actual power having shifted elsewhere largely during the Heian period and completely after it. Stca74 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think one of the absolutely key elements to the compilation and promulgation of the Meiji Constitution was that it was patterned after Western notions of what a constitution should be, and what a modern nation-state should be (i.e. that a modern nation-state, one which wanted to be recognized and respected as "modern" by the Western powers, ought to have a Constitution of a certain type or style). So, yes, Japan had previous legal codes, but I would argue it did not previously have a "Constitution". LordAmeth 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair points, and what I suspected was behind the wording in the article. However, I think it would help to spell this out explicitly in the article to avoid misunderstanding by someone who's not familiar with the countries old (and in the 8th century quite legalistic) history. After all, the Nara-period codes are quite comprehensive constitutions, describing a bureaucracy that is not in principle anything completely alien to "modern" constitutions (although them, and especially their meritocratic elements, were not really observed for too long...). I could draft some expansion around this unless you want to take care. Stca74 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right - and I normally am very much the type to not ignore or sideline earlier history (i.e. globalization started with the Silk Road, not with airplanes and telegraphs). Please do go ahead and expand as you see fit - though it might be a good idea to keep it brief. Cheers. LordAmeth 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Finally did the modifications promised. Stca74 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right - and I normally am very much the type to not ignore or sideline earlier history (i.e. globalization started with the Silk Road, not with airplanes and telegraphs). Please do go ahead and expand as you see fit - though it might be a good idea to keep it brief. Cheers. LordAmeth 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair points, and what I suspected was behind the wording in the article. However, I think it would help to spell this out explicitly in the article to avoid misunderstanding by someone who's not familiar with the countries old (and in the 8th century quite legalistic) history. After all, the Nara-period codes are quite comprehensive constitutions, describing a bureaucracy that is not in principle anything completely alien to "modern" constitutions (although them, and especially their meritocratic elements, were not really observed for too long...). I could draft some expansion around this unless you want to take care. Stca74 11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think one of the absolutely key elements to the compilation and promulgation of the Meiji Constitution was that it was patterned after Western notions of what a constitution should be, and what a modern nation-state should be (i.e. that a modern nation-state, one which wanted to be recognized and respected as "modern" by the Western powers, ought to have a Constitution of a certain type or style). So, yes, Japan had previous legal codes, but I would argue it did not previously have a "Constitution". LordAmeth 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Emperor alone?
On the other hand, these “Ministers of State” were appointed by (and could be dismissed by), the Emperor alone, and not by the Prime Minister or the Diet.
I have documentation here that seem to indicate you should remove the words "the Emperor alone" from your above quote.
The first indicates that the Japanese emperor even then 'reigned but did not rule' by pointing out where Meiji articles required the delegation of the authority to others you claim were his alone,
the second pointing out he was not the only party capable of dismissing ministers of state.
According to the historians writing the section on Japan's gov't, Emperor and the Meiji Constitution in "The Oxford Companion to WWII"(Oxford University Press 1995), on pages 610-11 you could call the 'reign but not rule' area, those prerogatives were actually delegated by articles to others.
Under its 'Government' section it also backs up contrary evidence I also see in "The Japanese War Machine" (Chartwell Books 1976) pages 36-40 that point out...
Each time, and they wielded this power liberally, the military wanted a different Prime Minister or Cabinet, they simply ordered the sitting War Minister to resign which automatically dissolved the Cabinet and since a cabinet could only be reformed if a service minister were appointed, "it followed that by having serving officers in these posts the Army and the Navy had a stranglehold on the government." Pag 37
Am I reading this wrong?
It appears you should remove the words "the Emperor alone" there maybe.Befuddler 09:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
