An Honest Look at Abe

Flags flew at half-staff throughout Tokyo this Monday as high-ranking officials gathered for the wake of Japan’s preeminent political leader Shinzo Abe, whose violent passing has sent shock waves through not only Japan but also the entire world, and understandably prompted a global outpouring of grief and of praise. Many rightfully remembered Mr. Abe as a statesman, the longest-serving prime minister in Japan’s postwar history, who guided his nation to a renewed role as a global power.

But viewed from within Japan, Mr. Abe presents a more complex figure. Throughout his controversial political career, he displayed two faces: the ideological Mr. Abe, a scion of a tradition of right-wing nationalism, determined to finally transcend the pacifist legacy and stain of Japan’s wartime defeat; and there was Mr. Abe, the pragmatic politician, adept at the use of power but accepting the limits on his actions imposed by Japan’s democracy.

Shinzo Abe was a popular, even if divisive, politician who was no stranger to controversies. But he was also one of the most consequentialist leaders of post-war Japan. Since his rise to power in 2006 until his tragic assassination last week, he remained a tall presence in Japan’s politics and his views reshaped the country’s global profile.

From the beginning of his political career, Mr. Abe embraced the agenda of the “new conservatives” in Japan who looked back to the Kishi era. They sought a return of Japanese pride and patriotism, the rollback of occupation-era educational reforms, and the revision of the American-drafted constitution, particularly Article 9 in which Japan forever renounced “war as a sovereign right of the nation and threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.” Mr. Abe often called for “bringing an end to the postwar regime.” This meant reversing the judgment of the war crimes tribunals that branded Japan an aggressor. They offered a view of the war as a justified act of self-defense and liberation of Asia from Western imperialism. From battles over textbooks to visiting the shrine to Japan’s war dead, Mr. Abe and the new conservatives assailed what they labeled a left-wing “masochistic” view of Japan’s proud history.

His pursuit of that ideological mission proved a disaster. In 2007, he drew harsh criticism for insisting that the women dragooned into sexual servitude by the Imperial Army during the war — the so-called comfort women — did so voluntarily. In 2013, he made an official visit as prime minister to the Yasukuni Shrine, an act that predictably triggered huge protests from South Korea and China, and also angered the Unites States, which was trying to improve relations among the Northeast Asian countries. In 2014, Mr. Abe launched an assault on The Asahi Shimbun, the flagship of the liberal media, accusing it of using false evidence in its claims about the coercion of comfort women. The next year, he reiterated a 1995 apology for Japan’s pursuit of “colonial rule and aggression” — terminology the conservative nationalists rejected — but replaced that language with a milder formulation that “Japan took the wrong course and advanced along the road to war” causing “immeasurable damage and suffering.”

Abe’s ideological obsessions never really wavered, even after leaving office two years ago; he remained the most powerful figure in the LDP and used his pulpit to advocate for tough stances on military buildup, open a debate about nuclear weapons for Japan, and hammer away at his cherished goal of revising the constitution. The former Japanese prime minister’s shocking assassination may prove to be the catalyst for that last piece of his agenda to finally be realized. The apparent sympathy vote for the LDP in Sunday’s upper house election has created a two-thirds majority in favor of revision, positioning the party to put it to a national referendum.

Abe may not have succeeded in restoring Japan’s economic superpower status while his attempts to rewrite the Constitution met with strong opposition from sections of the political class and society for whom memories of its past militarism are still afresh. But Abe left a lasting imprint on its security thinking, spending more on defense, that broke the long-held cap of 1%. Having realized the limits of Japan’s power in meeting regional challenges, he advocated a deeper relationship with the United States and pushed for a regional response to China’s rise. He was one of the strongest advocates of the Quad in 2004 — a loose partnership comprising the US, Japan, Australia and India particularly as a counterweight to China’s assertive actions — and by the time he left power in 2020, the Quad had been revitalized. In a country where talks about a stronger defense policy were considered taboo, Abe mainstreamed discussions for a stronger defense doctrine and even called for a nuclear sharing agreement with the U.S. He remained an influential figure in national politics.

On the other hand, despite Abe’s unparalleled power in modern Japanese politics, he was also unpopular with a lot of Japanese people. His signature “Abenomics” economic revival plans made marginal gains, many of them wiped out by COVID-19, and his tenure was marred by numerous corruption scandals. All told, his assassination could have consequences for the Japanese psyche. For decades, Japan was essentially a rule taker in the global economy, often assuming a defensive posture in international trade and rarely taking risks to champion new rules and norms. Abe changed all that, as his bold efforts on Trans-Pacific Partnership, quality infrastructure, data governance underscore. At a time when the global economic order is under stress and the United States has pulled back from its traditional role as shaper of global economic rules, Abe’s leadership was pivotal. His legacy, in my view, will long outlive his tragic end.

Note: Beginning with this issue, I shall be writing a fortnightly column for The Balita. My earlier column, “Straight from the Horse’s Mouth,” largely covered society’s most recognizable personalities whom I’ve had the pleasure to engage with. This time, however, I shall be pivoting to personal commentaries on the most pressing issues that has happened over the past week. Our observations of the world are formed by the point of view from which we observe things. At the same time, our point of view is often established by our observations. Issues often boil down to perspective. And there are two sides to every story. And while there are certainly millions of people who fall somewhere in between the two most visible positions of a topic, I understand that they are incredibly nuanced issues that need the application of critical thinking, not just simple labels. Hence, my new column name, “Vice-Versa,” which also stands as a word-play on my current role with the Club.