World News
Japan snap poll triggers debate over PM Sanae Takaichi power to dissolve lower house
A political and constitutional debate has intensified in Japan after Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi dissolved the House of Representatives and called a snap general election, with opposition parties questioning what they describe as the “exclusive prerogative” long exercised by the prime minister.
A political and constitutional debate has intensified in Japan after Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi dissolved the House of Representatives and called a snap general election, with opposition parties questioning what they describe as the “exclusive prerogative” long exercised by the prime minister.
The election, scheduled for February 8, comes less than 16 months after the previous general polls held in October 2024, prompting critics to argue that the move was politically motivated and aimed at strengthening the ruling coalition’s fragile majority, Kyodo News reported.
Japan’s Constitution does not explicitly grant the prime minister the authority to dissolve the lower chamber. However, Article 7 allows the emperor to dissolve the House of Representatives “with the advice and approval” of the Cabinet. Over the years, this clause has been interpreted as enabling the prime minister to initiate dissolution, as the emperor plays no political role.
Takaichi dissolved the House on January 23 at the opening of the regular Diet session, marking the first such action without prior parliamentary debate since 1966. The decision cut short lawmakers’ four-year terms, which were otherwise set to continue until 2028.
Legal experts and opposition leaders have increasingly questioned the practice, describing the government’s discretionary use of the power as arbitrary and calling for clearer rules.
“Japan uses the power to dissolve the lower house more frequently than any other country,” Satoshi Honjo, co-policy chief of the newly formed Centrist Reform Alliance, said, urging that the authority be exercised with restraint.
The Centrist Reform Alliance — formed by the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and Komeito — has pledged to clarify dissolution rules to prevent decisions that “disregard public opinion.” The Social Democratic Party has also made similar commitments in its campaign.
Takaichi, who leads the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and governs with coalition partner Japan Innovation Party, defended her decision, saying the new ruling bloc formed in October had yet to secure a direct public mandate. She cited “major policy shifts,” including her “responsible yet aggressive” fiscal stance, as justification for seeking fresh approval from voters.
The move has revived debate over two constitutional provisions — Articles 7 and 69. Article 69 requires the Cabinet to resign unless the lower house is dissolved within 10 days of a no-confidence vote. Past legal challenges have argued that dissolutions unrelated to Article 69 are unconstitutional, but Japan’s Supreme Court has historically avoided ruling on the matter, calling such acts highly political and outside judicial review.
As a result, dissolutions timed for political advantage have become entrenched in Japanese politics.
Takeshi Inoue, a law professor at Kwansei Gakuin University, said formalising or limiting dissolution rules would be desirable, though he noted similar reforms abroad — such as Britain’s 2011 fixed-term parliament law — had limited success and were later repealed.
Another constitutional scholar, Motohiro Hashimoto of Chuo University, argued that dissolution should not be treated as the prime minister’s exclusive power but rather a collective Cabinet authority. He suggested dissolutions tied to Article 69 should be considered standard, while others should be clearly defined as exceptional.
Hashimoto described Takaichi’s latest move as “among the least justifiable” under the current framework, adding that voters remain the only effective check on such decisions.
