A Leadership Crisis in Japan
On September 7, 2025, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba announced his resignation after a string of electoral defeats left his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) weakened and his authority diminished. The resignation came amid rising public frustration over the cost of living, wavering economic performance, and declining trust in government leadership.
As markets reacted with volatility—the yen fell and government bond yields rose—attention quickly turned to the question of who should succeed him. Under Japan’s current parliamentary system, the choice of Prime Minister is made through an internal party leadership contest, not by a direct vote of the people.
This raises a fundamental democratic question: Should Japan’s next leader be chosen by party insiders—the so-called “big wigs”—or should the citizens themselves have a direct say?
The Current System: Party Over People
Japan’s Constitution places the power of selecting the Prime Minister in the hands of the National Diet. The lower house holds decisive authority if the two chambers disagree. In practice, this means that whichever party controls the lower house—and especially its internal factions—decides the Prime Minister.
For decades, the LDP has operated through a system of factional bargaining. Senior figures distribute influence, and leadership contests are settled in backrooms more often than at the ballot box. Ordinary voters influence leadership only indirectly through legislative elections, not through a direct vote for the country’s top executive.
A Comparison to the U.S.
This process is not unique to Japan. In the United States, for example, vice-presidential nominees are not chosen by public vote, but rather by party leadership. In 2020, Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee for vice president by decision of Joe Biden and party insiders—not through any citizen ballot.
Japan’s process resembles this model: leadership outcomes are determined within party structures, not through direct citizen choice.
The Case for Direct Election of the Prime Minister
Reformers argue that allowing citizens to vote directly for the Prime Minister would:
-
Strengthen democratic legitimacy by giving voters a direct stake in leadership.
-
Enhance accountability, ensuring the Prime Minister answers directly to the electorate.
-
Reduce reliance on party factions and internal bargaining.
At various points in modern history, proposals for such reforms have surfaced, though none have advanced far. Still, moments of crisis—like today—renew debate over whether the public, rather than party insiders, should ultimately choose Japan’s leader.
Constitutional and Cultural Hurdles
Constitutional Barriers
-
Article 67 of Japan’s Constitution explicitly requires that the Prime Minister be designated by the National Diet. To change this, Japan would need to amend its Constitution.
-
Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Diet followed by a public referendum—a high bar in a country cautious about rewriting its postwar settlement.
-
Beyond the vote itself, Japan’s parliamentary system would need to be redesigned to clarify the powers of a directly elected leader, potentially shifting toward a presidential or semi-presidential model.
Cultural Challenges
-
Japan’s political culture values consensus and harmony, not strong, individualistic leadership. A direct vote for Prime Minister would disrupt this tradition by concentrating authority in one person.
-
The LDP’s factional system—which has stabilized politics for decades—would be weakened by direct elections, threatening the party’s internal balance.
-
Japanese society is historically wary of “presidential” politics, viewing it as too confrontational and personality-driven.
-
Trust in institutions and bureaucracy, rather than individual politicians, runs deep. Moving toward a system that elevates individuals above institutions would represent a profound cultural shift.
The resignation of Prime Minister Ishiba exposes a tension in Japan’s democracy: should leadership transitions be settled by party insiders, or should they involve the people directly?
While the idea of a citizen vote for Prime Minister appeals to democratic ideals, the reality is far more complex. Constitutional hurdles demand supermajority approval and a referendum, while cultural traditions of consensus and party-driven leadership resist presidential-style politics.
In short, change would require not just altering the rules, but reshaping how Japan understands leadership itself. Until then, the choice of Prime Minister will remain in the hands of party leaders—not the citizens they govern.
