France and Japan are governed differently. Executive leaders of the two countries possess varying degrees of power and influence. France is led by a president while Japan is led by a prime minister. The two leaders ascend to power differently. This may partly explain the reason why the prime minister of Japan is not a very influential person.
The French president has considerable power and influence as compared to the Japanese prime minister. It has been argued that the French president has considerable power that is not permitted in other democracies. For instance, the president has power to appoint the prime minister (Gaffney 54).
The prime minister leads the government while the president exercises executive authority in France. French presidents have great personal influence on the country. This influence can be ascribed to the fact that the president is required by the constitution to be a uniting factor. The president is expected to behave like a statesman in public. France is partially socialist. The French constitution declares that France is a democratic and socialist state. Former presidents appeared to subscribe to socialist ideals.
In contrast, the national symbol of unity in Japan is the emperor. The emperor is the head of state. However, his office is ceremonial in nature. The emperor witnesses the swearing in of the prime minister. This affects the public influence of the prime minister. The citizens look up to the emperor in times of crisis.
For instance, in times of war the populace expects the emperor to be a source of hope. The emperor is expected to encourage the citizens and the soldiers to fight for their country and the prime minister is expected to oversee the logistics of the war. Though the prime minister will have done a lot of work, it is the emperor who is remembered more for giving hope and encouragement. This may be attributed to the fact that war and crises are perceived emotionally.
In France, the president comes to power through a popular vote. The president has to seek power from the people directly. The president has an opportunity to endear himself to the populace during campaigns. In addition he has to get more than half the votes cast to assume office.
This implies that the president enjoys the support of at least half the population. This loosely translates to considerable influence for the president. In such circumstances, the president can carry out his mandate with great confidence because majority of the people in the country have faith in his leadership.
On the other hand, the Japanese prime minister is elected by parliament (Diet). Though a future prime minister is expected to receive support from majority of the prefectures, he does not have to engage the public directly. This reduces his influence in the country. Absence of the ability to directly elect the prime minister has made many Japanese nationals feel that the premiership rather than prime minister is important. In Japan, the ruling party is in power.
The ruling party has the final say on who becomes the prime minister. It can dismiss the prime minister through an impeachment motion. Therefore, the power and influence of the prime minister is largely tied to the composition of parliament. Japan has had many prime ministers since the end of World War II (Mulgan 195). This is clear evidence that the prime ministers are merely representatives of their parties. They lack personal influence. However, there have been a few prime ministers with considerable influence.
They include those who made the economy their priority. It is important to note that this group of prime ministers had a greater risk for impeachment. In the past they have been forced to shoulder responsibility for an election defeat or policy failure. This compelled many former prime ministers to suppress their views. Generally, a Japanese prime minister does not remain in the national limelight long enough to become a national figure. They are usually forced to resign before they capture attention of the nation.
In both France and Japan, the executive leaders have been given the power to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers. In Japan, the prime minister appoints both members of parliament and non-parliamentarians to cabinet. The Japanese prime minister can dismiss members of cabinet as he wishes.
If a prime minister is dropped by his party, the new prime minister is expected to appoint a new cabinet. However, the French president can appoint the prime minister and other office holders but he cannot dismiss them without the approval of parliament. The president can control the executive arm of government if he has a clear majority in the national assembly. The president’s control is reduced if a different party has more members of parliament (Thorburn 201).
The French president reserves the power to declare war on an enemy. The president is empowered by the constitution to decide when nuclear arsenal can be used. This is enormous power vested on a single individual. It is important to note that the president can take all power in times of crisis.
In such scenarios the prime minister and parliament lose control over the president. The president of the republic of France also reserves the right to negotiate and sign treaties with other countries. This is absolute power and no one other than the citizens of France can overturn his decisions.
In Japan, the prime minister together with his cabinet may recommend a course of action to parliament and the emperor who must agree before any action is taken. The prime minister cannot declare war without the approval of parliament. Treaties must also be ratified by parliament. In such situations the party leader seems to have more influence than the prime minister.
The party leader in Japan is traditionally regarded as the second in command after the prime minister. The prime minister is somewhat less influential when it comes to party issues. This subordination may lead to resignation of the prime minister.
In conclusion, the Japanese prime minister is elected by members of parliament while the French president is elected by the public. The French president has more power and influence than the Japanese prime minister. The French president is a symbol of unity while the Japanese prime minister is only a chief executive of the country.
In both Japan and France, the cabinet is appointed by the chief executive (prime minister and president respectively). However, in France the power to dismiss ministers is regulated by parliament. In Japan, the prime minister has the power to dismiss cabinet members without offering a satisfactory explanation.
Works Cited
Gaffney, John. Political Leadership in France: From Charles de Gaulle to Nicolas Sarkozy, Palgrave: Macmillan Publishers, 2012. Print.
Mulgan, A. “Japan’s Political Leadership Deficit.” Australian Journal of Political Science. 35.2 (2000): 183–202. Web.
Thorburn, H.G. “Towards a More Simplified Party System in France.” Canadian Journal of Political Science.1. 2 (1968): 204-216. Web.