BBC: The expanding scale of protests across Japan highlights societal divisions

According to a report by BBC (Japanese edition) on May 8: In the streets of Tokyo, people gathered under torrential rain. Each held a sign or flag. One sign bore only four characters in large, bold kanji: “Oppose War.”

This voice is growing louder across Japan. The largest anti-war demonstrations in decades are now taking place in multiple locations.

Since Kōshi Asanao took office in October 2025, she has significantly departed from Japan’s postwar pacifist stance—abolishing long-standing restrictions on arms exports and expanding Japan’s role in overseas military operations.

The Japanese government argues that these measures are necessary amid escalating regional tensions. Yet, an increasing number of citizens are expressing concern.

People are growing anxious that Japan may become a nation capable of launching wars, and protest activities are intensifying accordingly.

In Japan, public protests are usually relatively restrained. Culturally, there is an emphasis on social harmony and avoiding disruption. Therefore, when large crowds take to the streets, it typically signals deeper underlying societal shifts.

This time, the issue revolves around national identity.

After World War II, Japan adopted its current constitution. Article 9 prohibits the maintenance of military power and renounces war as a means of settling international disputes—that is, the exercise of state sovereignty.

Kōshi now claims this framework is outdated. Japan’s geographic situation is complex: a strong China, an unpredictable North Korea, and Russia are all close at hand. With the United States as its closest ally, Washington is urging Japan to play a more active role in security matters.

Kōshi is not the first Japanese leader to push for reform of Japan’s postwar security system.

Over the past few decades, conservative leaders have called for revising the constitution enacted in 1947. This sentiment is particularly strong among members of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has governed for years. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe once proposed revising Article 9 to clarify the role of the Self-Defense Forces.

In 2015, during Abe’s cabinet, parliament passed a security-related bill expanding the role of the Self-Defense Forces. The legislation sparked intense debate in Japan and allowed limited self-defense rights, including dispatching armed forces to support allied nations under attack.

However, the decision by the Japanese government on April 21 this year to lift restrictions on arms exports marks a significant step. For decades after WWII, Japan had banned exporting weapons with lethal capabilities; now, that ban has been lifted. The government says allies need mutual support in an increasingly severe security environment.

Many Japanese people reacted strongly to this decision.

Outside the prime minister’s office, heavy rain fell as crowds surged and chants grew louder. It wasn’t just older generations speaking out—many young people in their twenties and thirties were present too.

A woman in her thirties held a brightly colored lantern symbolizing peace. She said: “They don’t care about the people’s voices at all.” She expressed outrage over reforms made without consulting public opinion.

Nearby, an elderly man stood tall, waving a bright red banner. He declared: “Article 9 must be strictly upheld. Thanks to Article 9, Japan did not have to join the U.S. in attacking Iran this time.”

The Japanese Constitution came into effect two years after the end of WWII. In that war, the U.S. defeated Japan. Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in over 200,000 deaths by the end of 1945.

The “peace clause” in Article 9 stipulates that the state will renounce war and refrain from maintaining military power. Subsequently, the government interpreted this principle as allowing the retention of the Self-Defense Forces.

Supporters of the peace clause argue that Japan’s past militarism could otherwise resurface if this provision were abolished.

Yet not everyone accepts Article 9. Some view it as imposed by foreign powers, sparking controversy. Critics claim the policy was heavily influenced by the U.S., especially during heightened Cold War tensions, raising concerns about Japan’s vulnerability.

But for many, especially those who remember the war and the atomic bombings, fear remains about the consequences of deviating from pacifism. Survivors of the atomic bombing recently appealed at the United Nations to abolish nuclear weapons and build a human society free of nuclear weapons and war.

“Nuclear weapons were used because we started the war first,” said Hama Sumio, president of the Japan Atomic Bomb Victims Association, told reporters.

Public opinion across Japan is also deeply divided. Recent surveys point in different directions.

Surveys show growing support for strengthening defense capabilities to meet today’s global realities. On the other hand, surveys also reveal a notable number of opponents.

Supporters of constitutional revision argue that Japan’s security environment has fundamentally changed. They believe Article 9 is overly stringent—it was drafted immediately after defeat in war. Japan must now possess deterrence capability, support allies, and actively respond to regional crises. To them, expanding the legitimacy of the Self-Defense Forces does not mean abandoning pacifism—it means ensuring Japan can survive in an increasingly turbulent world.

On the other hand, opponents warn that the peace clause could gradually be eroded through incremental changes. Article 9 is not merely a legal restriction—it represents a moral responsibility for past actions that led to devastating war.

During the protests, a convenience store cashier summed up the nation’s deep division: “Those people are always here,” he said with irritation, referring to demonstrators. He added: “Now we should create a new Japan.”

This is precisely the societal rift facing the country today.

Hama Sumio, president of the Association of A-bomb Survivors, urged: “No more wars. No more hibakusha.”

Fears are being voiced that Japan might once again become involved in war conflicts. Protest movements have spread beyond Tokyo, with rallies held in major cities such as Osaka, Kyoto, and Fukuoka. Reports indicate that participation numbers are increasing week by week.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1864620390818955/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.