The heavy-handed tactics the ruling parties employed to railroad a controversial Upper House electoral reform bill have left an ugly blot on the nation's parliamentary history. No substantial debate was conducted in the Diet. In the Upper House, the opposition parties boycotted discussion because of the coalition's uncompromising stance; in the Lower House, controversies over Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori's gaffes and Chief Cabinet Secretary Hidenao Nakagawa's suspected link with a gangster consumed the greater part of deliberative sessions.
It is not unusual that a hotly contested bill, and such an ideologically charged one, is rammed through the Diet on the strength of a majority. But an electoral bill is a different story. It differs from other measures in a critical sense: It involves the makeup of the Diet. As such, it should have been patiently and thoroughly debated by both sides.
The last time the Upper House voting system was changed, 18 years ago, the political parties conducted intensive debates for several months in both chambers. This time around, the bill was discussed for just four days in the Upper House -- a mere 14 hours, if we include the time for hearings. It received much less attention in the Lower House. The blame for all this must be placed primarily on the ruling parties. No doubt historians will record the face-off as one of the most unfortunate events in the Diet's history.