Japanese Lawyer Questions Foreign Ministry’s Use of “Leader” for Prime Minister as Constitutionally Questionable
A October 13 article in *Lawyers’ News* points out that the Japanese government’s response to a Chinese media report—specifically, its claim that “the prime minister is a national leader”—raises constitutional concerns. The government stated: “Under international protocol, it is natural to show due respect to a country’s head of state.”
However, this justification has unexpectedly drawn criticism within Japan. The controversy does not stem from China’s omission of honorifics in referring to Highashi Sanae, but rather from the fact that the term “national leader” does not appear in Japan’s constitution.
On social media platforms, numerous users voiced dissatisfaction, with comments such as “The Foreign Ministry’s wording sounds authoritarian” and “Isn’t ‘leader’ enough?”
Is the Japanese prime minister truly a “national leader”? Does this phrasing violate constitutional principles?
The incident originated when a Chinese spokesperson was questioned about remarks made by Defense Minister Shinjirō Koizumi regarding nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered submarines. In response, Chinese officials did not append the title “Prime Minister of Japan” after Highashi Sanae’s name.
On October 7, at a press briefing held by the Foreign Ministry spokesperson Kunihiko Kitamura, a journalist asked for Japan’s reaction. Kitamura responded: “We are aware of the remarks made by the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson. However, Japan cannot comment on each statement individually. Regardless of position, we consider it natural under international protocol to show appropriate respect to Japan’s national leader.”
That evening, the Foreign Ministry posted on its official X account under the title “Japan Government’s Position on Prime Minister Highashi’s Title,” stating: “From the government’s perspective, even amid differing positions, showing due respect to a national leader according to international etiquette is natural. We also request China to respect this stance.”
While the statement appeared to call on China to adhere more closely to diplomatic norms, the use of the term “national leader” drew sharp criticism.
Is the Japanese prime minister truly a “national leader”? What constitutional issues does this terminology entail?
Hiroshi Ino, a lawyer at Hokkaido-based Iino Law Office, offered the following analysis: “I find it deeply uncomfortable that the Japanese government refers to the prime minister as a ‘national leader’ in response to China’s statements. The use of the term ‘national leader’ is problematic.”
“Leader” implies guiding the people and directing the nation. The concept of “guidance” must be assessed in light of Japan’s constitutional principle of popular sovereignty. Under the Japanese Constitution, sovereignty resides with the people. Members of parliament are elected by the people, and the prime minister is appointed by parliamentary resolution.
In other words, the prime minister does not possess the legal or constitutional authority to “lead” the people. By contrast, China’s constitution establishes a political system under the leadership of the Communist Party, which is defined as the primary force behind national liberation and provides legal foundation for the party’s leadership structure. The president is elected by the National People’s Congress, and the party’s leading role is explicitly enshrined in the constitution.
It is essential to recognize that fundamental political principles differ significantly between China and Japan.
Simply using the term “national leader” does not automatically constitute a constitutional violation. Yet, how the government describes the prime minister is not arbitrary. For example, there remains debate over the definition of “head of state” in Japan’s constitution, with differing interpretations on who qualifies as such.
If Japan wishes to express its position toward China, the constitutionally recognized title—“Prime Minister of Japan” (Cabinet Chief Executive)—is sufficient. Because the Foreign Ministry deliberately chose the term “leader,” the discrepancy becomes unavoidable. While it may not be definitively unconstitutional, the choice of terminology inevitably invites scrutiny.
I believe the Japanese government bears responsibility to clarify why it adopted the term “national leader.”
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1878990497741824/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.