Does a state of good public order exist simply because a set of rules is in place and everyone follows them? The existence of rules implies that someone established them. Under the political system of Japan—a democracy—sovereignty resides with the people, meaning they hold the power to determine these rules. Democracy secures the validity of adhering to rules by allowing citizens to participate in their creation. As a philosophy for national decision-making, democracy is likely the best system available. However, when we attempt to implement it, we must ask: does this philosophy actually function effectively?
To ensure the validity of rules, citizens must participate in the law-making process. The first question is whether they truly can. In Japan, participation is almost synonymous with voting. Yet, what we choose are not specific policies, but representatives. We participate by delegating policy decision-making to them. This process—selecting representatives to make decisions within a relatively small group—is the reality of modern governance. This isn’t unique to nations or democracy; any organization or group of a certain scale, such as a corporation, follows a similar structure. It is unavoidable when the number of stakeholders is large.
How are these representatives chosen? In both countries and companies, while academic background and ability matter, human relationships play a decisive role. These relationships can be described as the “social context.” The connections between people from all walks of life are vital in becoming a representative. In Japan, this social context relates not only to the selection of leaders but also to the maintenance of public order. This is because relationships are forged through the medium of the Japanese language.
When social context contributes to public order, Japanese plays a crucial role. This isn’t just because rules are written in Japanese—which is important for preventing misinterpretation—but because the social culture of conversation and behavior conducted in Japanese maintains order. A “safe” society is not one without problems; it is one where, when problems arise, there are means of resolution rooted in mutual understanding and shared recognition, such as language, behavior, and rules.
However, this implies that those outside this social context fear exclusion. Those on the outside include, for example, immigrants with different languages and customs, or the impoverished who are alienated from the decision-making of social groups like the state or corporations. What does it mean to be alienated from decision-making? To be “closest” to decision-making is to hold the authority to decide; to be “near” it is to have some involvement in the matters decided. The less involvement one has, the more one slips into poverty.
In this regard, democracy remains the best philosophy because sovereignty lies with the people. On the other hand, in the actual process of decision-making, varying distances can emerge between the matters being decided and the individuals affected by them. This distance is what we call “disparity.” Equality in democracy is the equality of decision-making. By appointing representatives, a gap naturally forms between the issues and the people. However, if equality in economic decision-making is guaranteed under capitalism protected by democracy, a balance might be achieved. From this perspective, the twin pillars of democracy and capitalism may not be decaying systems past their prime, but rather systems still in the midst of their development.
