QUESTION: Trace the Popular Rights Movement in the Meiji Period.

What
was its impact?

ANSWER: After the Meiji Restoration, which restored direct political power to
the emperor, Japan underwent a period of sweeping political and social
reform and westernization which was aimed at strengthening Japan, to the
level of the nations of the Western world. The Meiji constitution of 1889
marked the culmination of this modernization process, which resulted in the
establishment of the first parliamentary government in Japan. The Meiji
constitution or the declaration by the Meiji government that it would
promulgate a constitution in 1889 had marked an end to the Popular Rights
Movement that had emerged in Japan during the 1870s.

Peter Duus has argued that the 1870s were not only marked by a
breakthrough to modernity but also by vocal anti-government criticism,
sometimes coupled with outbursts of political violence. Majority of this
opposition had come from peasants in the countryside or in some cases
violent outbursts by members of the ex-samurai class, who believed that the
Meiji oligarchy had betrayed the original aims of the restoration. It was a new
form of peaceful political protest relying on political agitation, local
organization, journalistic attacks and direct petition to the central government
that had emerged by the mid-1870s. According to Jansen, this liberal
opposition can be traced back to the splintering of the original leadership
group in October 1873. Antagonized by Han favoritism, the monopoly of the
Satsuma-Chosu monopoly of power and by difference of opinion regarding a
military expedition to Korea had led a dissident minority group to break away
from this Meiji oligarchy to form the first political association in Japan. The
leaders of this movement were Itagaki and Goto, who deeply impressed by the
western techniques of political opposition in the form of constitutional
agitation and through political parties had given rise to a new era in Japanese
politics. the organization formed by these leaders- Aikokukoto- and its
demand for a representative assembly had thrown a liberal challenge to the
incumbent leadership for the first time and signaled the opening of what
became a decade long campaign known as the Popular Rights Movement.

Emphasizing on liberty, equality and the right to elect government officials,

the Popular Rights movement brought together at various points of time
former Restoration leaders and intellectuals, urbanites and villagers, shizoku
and wealthy commoners, peasants and intellectuals- all of whom shared an
interest in opposing oligarchic rule. It has been argued that Itagaki and Goto
had a public and factional motive in launching such a movement as they
wanted to oppose the Satsuma-Chosu monopolization of power. But those,
who backed their demands for freedom and popular rights reflected a much
wider spectrum. There were some, who believed that a constitutional
assembly was needed for the sake of national unity in the face of foreign
threat; while others who believed that a parliament’s function would be to
control the emperor’s advisers and not limit the authority of Emperor and it
was the more radically minded, who saw the movement as a means to achieve
and establish social justice within Japan. Jansen has argued that some of these
leaders believed that it was the establishment of representative institutions,
which were essential to ensure the political progress of the country. It was
only when people were entrusted with political rights that they could not only
provide a check to the arbitrary manner of governance of the oligarchy but
they would also willingly assume the many duties of citizenship, manifest a
new unity of purpose and develop the spirit of enterprise that was known to
exist among the populations of fully civilized countries.

Itagaki spearheaded the movement in its early phase. In 1874, he formed

‘Risshisha’, a local political association in Tosa that took upon itself the task of
popularizing liberal thought. It began to agitate for a national assembly,
lowering of taxes and revision of the unequal treaties. They also began to
spread the theory of natural rights - right to life, liberty and property- that all
human beings were entitled to and rights that no one could take away. To
educate members of this new political philosophy, the association sponsored
public lectures and talks that introduced the thought of Locke, Mills, Rousseau
and Bentham. Duus has argued that during its initial phase, this movement
was neither democratic nor popular in nature. It was recruited and led mainly
by former samurai- mainly from Tosa. Thus, Risshisha was essentially
concerned about helping local samurai in Tosa adjust to changing economic
conditions as it did at arousing their political consciousness. These leaders
had very little confidence in the wisdom of the common people or in their
ability to participate in politics. When they spoke of people they essentially
meant the ex-samurai class and the well-to-do peasants, who had formed the
village elite in the pre-Restoration times.

However, a change in this movement came towards the end of the decade
when an increasing number of local notables began to take up this cause. This
was the more ‘popular’ phase of the movement that saw participation by men
of all social classes, journalists, teachers, peasants and common labourers. The
turning point had come about in 1879 when Sakurai Shizuka published an
appeal in which he denounced the failure of the oligarchy to institute
representative institutions and appealed to the prefectural assemblies and the
common people to join him in a new campaign. The response was highly
positive and overwhelming as an increasing number of petitions were written
to the government to initiate such changes. With the national petition
campaign of 1879, the initiative within the movement had passed to hundreds
of local political societies. Prominent among these societies was Sekiyosha
founded by Kono. This society also took up the cause of popular rights and
representative government, but unlike Risshisha, its membership was not
restricted only to the Samurai class. It welcomed all people, who supported
the society’s goals, irrespective of class, wealth or station. Moreover, its
members did not confine themselves to discussing political issues alone but
also studied political science, economics, history and even natural sciences.
Kono also established an academy known as Seidokan that produced students
imbued with ideas of liberty, equality and democracy, who then took the lead
in setting up popular rights organizations in nearby villages. As a result of
these societies, the ignorant and unlearned sections of society were able to
eagerly debate the shape and substance of Japan’s constitution, when its
promulgation was declared in 1881 by the Meiji oligarchy.

Both Jansen and Duus have tried to explain the forces that motivated the local
notable into joining the movement. Duus has argued that the involvement of
the well-to-do sections in the countryside came at a time when the
countryside had witnessed a period of prosperity, which strengthened the
confidence of the local rural elite and generated leisure time and capital that
could be diverted to politics. Jansen, however, has seen their participation as a
natural outcome of the central government’s attempts to strengthen its
control over the countryside. As a result most of the functions that were
performed by the village elite were now performed by the state bureaucracy.
Thus, it was no surprise that these elements were attracted to the concept of
natural rights as it not only acted as a guarantee of private wealth but political
participation as well. Moreover, the government had opened up limited
participation in the political process at the grass root level by establishing
elected prefectural assemblies. However, this far from satisfying the masses
had further given rise to popular discontent as these assemblies only had the
right to discuss but not initiate legislation or review the annual budget.
Irokawa Daikichi has also argued that one should focus on the cultural
dimension of the political unrest as well. He argued that political activism at
the village level expressed the desire of Japan’s new citizens to transcend the
narrow world of feudal culture. Intellectually and socially, the Popular Rights
Movement opened up avenues of activity long denied to commoners.

Intellectuals also played an instrumental role in publicizing natural rights and

kindling enthusiasm for political reform. Nakamura Masanao and Fukuzawa
Yukichi were pioneers of the Meiji enlightenment, whose translations and
essays introduced western culture and political institutions to Japanese. But at
the same time there were a large number of journalists and amateur orators,
who also played an active role in spreading the message of this movement to a
large number of people. Numa was a leading pioneer in this respect, who ran a
Tokyo based paper, which was used as a forum for the constitutional
movement. A number of societies led by such intellectuals like the Omei
society had come up that promoted discussions and debates of political issues.
Moreover, its members also travelled to villages and lectured at temples,
schools, storehouses etc.

The Popular Rights Movement seems to have splintered after October 1881. It
was this period that witnessed four distinct developments: the growth of
political parties; agitation for greater power in local and prefectural
government; rise of an insurrectionist faction and the emergence of a radical
populist movement. However, none enjoyed more than temporary success
and each was suppressed or asked to disband even before the constitution
was promulgated. The formation of political parties started taking place after
the oligarchy had announced its decision to frame a constitution by 1889. The
first of such parties was the Liberal party led by Itagaki. Although, this party
had been able to create a party platform, a strong support base, a permanent
secretariat and even publish a newspaper, it probably did more to hinder the
constitutional movement than to oppose the oligarchic rule. The
monopolization of the high posts within the party by the Tosa men had given
rise to a great deal of factionalism within the party. Moreover, Itagaki had
emerged as a leader, who was more interested in pursuing his own interests
than that of the movement. His absence during the rise of radical groups in the
name of his party greatly weakened the party. Finally, the party was more
interested in thwarting the efforts of the Progressive party led by Okuma than
to oppose the government. According to Duus, the main reason behind the
failure of this party was its inability to check the radical forces within it which
taking advantage of the worsening situation in the countryside encouraged
protests against the state. This in turn had invited government repression that
broke the back of the party as it was not in a position to deal with this sort of
government coercion. The ‘Fukushima’ incident is said to have marked the
decline of not only the Liberal party but also of the People’s Rights Movement.
Moreover, many of the party leaders could also be bought by the government.
The party eventually broke up in 1884. The second party that was formed
during this period was the Progressive Party that believed in the gradual and
peaceful agitation for constitutional reforms. However, as the political
initiative on the constitutional question had shifted into the hands of the
government, neither of the parties were able to flourish. An increasing
number of people had started to see the futility of putting public pressure on a
government that was least inclined to heed it. All this had a significant adverse
affect on the popular support base of these parties.
The last years of the movement saw violent opposition to the Meiji
government. These were of two kinds: (1) insurrection plots that aimed at
avenging the government repression used against the Liberal party
demonstrators at ‘Fukushima’; the most notable instance of this was the
Kabasan uprising; and (2) peasant uprisings as the situation in the
countryside, particularly of the peasants had worsened as a result of the
government’s deflationary policy. The former category of movements were ill-
conceived, secretive in nature and completely isolated from the pressing
needs of the people. As a result, they never had a popular support base or the
organizational capacity to threaten the oligarchy. The peasant insurrections,
in particular, the Chichibu rebellion of 1884 garnered a great deal of support
from the peasantry in the countryside as it was centered around the issue of
debt relief. Despite the initial success of this uprising, it was completely
suppressed in light of massive government repression and its ability to buy
some of the leaders of this uprising. It was with the suppression of this
movement and the voluntary dissolution of the Liberal party that the Popular
Rights Movement came to an end.

The Popular Rights Movement had a significant impact on Japanese society

and polity. The most obvious consequence was that it had forced the
government to agree to a constitutional system. In face of the rising tide of this
popular movement for constitutional agitation the government had realized
that a certain degree of democratization would have to be brought into the
system. It is for this reason that the government had declared in 1881 that it
would issue a constitution in 1889. Moreover, the government officials
themselves were forced to discuss and deliberate regarding the nature of the
constitution. The most liberal view was put forward by Okuma, who
advocated a British style parliamentary system in which the government
would be formed by the majority party. He wrote, that the constitutional
government is party government and the struggle between parties are the
struggle of principles. This, however, was naturally rejected by the oligarchy.

Almost diametrically opposed to this was the view of Iwakura, an influential

noble who belonged to the core group of Meiji leaders. He and Inoue Kowashi
argued that in Japan, unlike Britain there was no tradition of political parties
and they would not be successful. Therefore, the Emperor should appoint and
dismiss the Cabinet independent of a parliamentary majority. Such views
were supported by influential newspapers.

However, Jansen has argued that declaration of the constitution should not be
seen as the highmark of the movement. He argued that although the Meiji
oligarchy issued a constitution, it was not able to establish a true democratic
polity. The constitution, was the oligarchic response to the existing liberal
tradition in Japan and was meant to be an instrument in the hand of the
oligarchy to suppress this liberal tradition. If one looks at the provisions of the
constitution it would become amply clear that only limited representation
was provided to political parties in the diet, where only the lower house could
be composed by a popular mandate. However, the franchise was restricted
only to a small number of people as it was based on the tax paying ability of
the people and thus, it was not a representative institution at all. Moreover,
the lower house of the diet, which was the only organ of the government in
which the political parties could have an effective voice had very limited
powers. It had no control over the Cabinet; could not interfere in dynastic
affairs; didn’t have the power to declare war, conclude peace or treaties nor
could it initiate any amendment in the constitution. Moreover, all control over
the government affairs were vested in the oligarchy that was spread over the
House of Peers, the cabinet, the privy council and the Genro. Thus, the
constitution was in fact an inflexible instrument of absolutism. It was a strait
jacket for democratic movements, as at every level, the position, privileges
and authority of the oligarch was safeguarded. According to Jansen, it was
only in the first few decades of the 20th century that political parties gained a
share of ministerial powers and the immediate impact of the Popular Rights’
Movement had only led to an even more authoritarian government.

According to Jansen, the limitation of the Popular Rights’ Movement came

from the leadership. It was weak and compromising that did not have the
ability to rise above their own vested interests to guide the various factions
that had now become a part of the movement. Moreover, the factionalism
within the various organizations had also limited or restricted its
effectiveness. However, the greatest weakness of the liberal movement during
this period was the acceptance of imperial authority as the fountain of all
legitimate political authority. The declaration by the liberal leaders that
power should be shared by the Emperor and the people was an ideological
commitment to the sanctity of the position of the Emperor. Thus, when the
Meiji oligarchy declared that the Emperor had issued an ordinance that it
would declare a new constitution it had come as a severe blow to the
movement.

The Popular Rights’ Movement had also exposed the authoritarian nature of
the Meiji oligarchy and how far they would go to curb any dissent against their
authority. Apart from resorting to ruthless coercion and bribery, a number of
other repressive measures were used like the Peace Preservation Law (1887)
that empowered the police to ban any person they suspected of creating
disturbances against the government; strict restrictions were imposed on the
press that required the newspapers’ editors to be registered, all comment to
be signed and for the editor to be held responsible for any anti-government
statement and finally such provisions were extended to cover political parties
and associations as well. As the movement gained momentum, the number of
arrests and seizures by the government also went on increasing.

Duus has also argued that the Popular Rights’ Movement had given rise to a
counter conservative reaction. The proponents of these counter currents
feared the influx of radical new ideas- natural rights, equality, legitimacy of
rebellion-that undermined respect for constituted authority. Nostalgic for the
virtues of discipline, obedience and order so central to pre-Restoration
attitudes, a new group of conservative intellectuals began to call for a return
to the values and morality of the old society. This undercurrent was
characterized by a great deal of anti-western attitude and by a desire for the
revival of Confucian-style moral education. It was this conservative reaction
that provided intellectual justification for the increasing static policies of the
government.

However, Duus has also tried to say that one should not ignore the positive
aspects of this movement. He argued that one of the most significant long-
term impacts of this movement was that it had established a new tradition of
legitimate political dissent. Moreover, this movement had given rise to a great
deal of political consciousness among the masses. It had provided an
opportunity to the common man to protest against the government in a
legitimate manner; something that had been denied to them for a long time. In
pre-Restoration times, even well-to-do peasants rarely had concerned
themselves with events beyond the village or domain boundaries. It was this
emergence of the Popular Rights Movement with a national organization
cutting across local provincialism that represented a broadening of political
consciousness, which was a complete departure from traditional politics. It
also marked the awakening of a new kind of nationalist sentiment, which was
necessary to make the country stronger. Finally, Duus has argued, many
veterans of the movement went on to become professional party politicians
after the opening of the Diet in the 1890s, continuing the struggle there
against the government oligarchy.

Thus, to conclude one can see that despite the modernization and progress of
Japan following the overthrow of the Bakuhan system, there was a great deal
of opposition to the Meiji oligarchy. One such opposition had come from the
liberal framework that had emerged in Japan. Through peaceful protests,
petitions, meetings and newspapers they had popularized and demanded for
popular rights and a constitutional system, thereby, galvanizing almost every
section of the society against the oligarchy. However, while, this movement
may have marked a new beginning in the history of Japanese politics as it laid
the groundwork for continuing opposition to an authoritarian system, it was
unable to achieve anything significantly tangible. The Oligarchs had no
intention of undermining their own authority or conceding large power or
rights to the people. Moreover, the rise of a conservative counter-reaction to
the movement gave legitimacy to the government absolutism, which was
reflected in the Constitution of 1889, for which the movement had been
launched.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 The Emergence of Meiji Japan- M. Jansen

 The Rise of Modern Japan- Peter Duus

 The Emergence of Modern Japan- EH Norman