Constitutional Affair

When Katō Shidzue took the floor she voiced her concern about the conflict between the new constitution and the 1898 Civil Code, which supported a family system dominated by men. She also questioned political equality on paper vs. social reform and welfare protection in fact. As she stated in one of her interpolations before the Plenary Session, she believed that the equality between men and women as stated in the draft under discussion was no more than a formality, "since it merely says mechanically in a provision of this Constitution that men and women are equal, in a real sense there will be no equality in real life."

The issue of particular concern to Diet members was the one which spoke directly to the role of men and women in the family. It was Article 23 in the American draft and was designed to break the back of the feudal system and therefore, while it could be tinkered with, the basic concept was not considered negotiable by SCAP. This meant that the Japanese government had great difficulty managing the debate which centered on this article without giving away the fact that they were powerless to make some changes in the ostensibly Japanese Constitution. Article 23 proved to be the most controversial item in the section of human rights.

In the Constitution Committee Katō parried with the Government Minister for the constitution, Kanamori Tokujirō, as Katō tried to show that the central issue of concern was the prewar family system as protected and promoted by the yet unreformed Meiji Civil Code of 1898, and that consequently it would be necessary to spell out very carefully the rights and protections of women if they were to attain real equality. It would also be necessary to revise the Civil Code.

Kanamori had been pressed hard by men who wanted to be sure that "equality of the sexes" would not destroy the household (ie) and some even hoped that it would not do away with the tradition of the house head. He had been assuring in his responses with such statements as, "We can expect that there will be considerable changes in the institutions of the family and succession, but, as the Prime Minister (Yoshida) has already explained, we do not assume that the rights of the house head or parents will immediately disappear." The discussion turned toward a concept of "different responsibilities for men and women," rather than equality.

Taking her turn in this heated debate, Katō Shidzue pointed to her conviction that the final draft of this article of the constitution must force a change in the basic nature of the Japanese family structure.

She began by recalling that Prime Minister Yoshida had commented the previously that the new equality "would not destroy the beautiful customs of the traditional Japanese family" for "those customs have to be respected and maintained." She then asked in the manner of appropriate interpolation whether the Prime Minister meant "the traditional ethical virtues of the Japanese family system, such as members of the family protecting their family honor, cultivating harmony, manners, industrious habits, and the like?" Or whether he was lauding family life as represented by an all-powerful male household head and oppressive laws against women.

She went on to describe her idea of the family, one in which husband and wife were equal, a place where family members could "rest and replenish their energy and body and heart. It must serve the function of protecting children until they mature, fostering their moral and emotional growth. Home must be the place where all the members can live happily and freely, develop their respective unique personalities and develop maturity of character. I believe family life must be understood properly and protected amply so that it will serve those functions."

She underscored her argument by saying that the current Civil Code was in complete contradiction with the article under discussion and with the Constitution and democracy in general, for "the current family system not only does not recognize husband and wife as legally equal, but it also considers the wife legally incompetent."