Presidential Election System Research Articles

LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH AND LEGISLATIVE REFORM: EVALUATING REGIME POLICY

It is often said that it is in the realm of regime policy that political scientists have most extensively contributed to public policy analysis. The political system's constitutional rules and institutional structures have been major objects of political research, while the substance of public policy, or the consequences of substantive public policy, have been analyzed much less extensively. Promontories of the regimethe party system, the presidential election system, apportionment of legislatures, congressional and state legislative organization-have been traditional targets of inquiry, sometimes diagnosis, and occasionally agenda for institutional change. The general problem is, of course, to juxtapose goals, purposes, or functions on the one side, and capability, effectiveness, or performance on the other, and then to assess political institutions in terms of how well they meet their goals, fulfill their purposes, or perform their functions. In the case of American state legislatures, the professional and quasi-professional literature of political science fairly abounds in various attempts to evaluate legislative capability or effectiveness, and recommend institutional changes. Political scientists can claim only very modest success in connection with their involvement in movements to effect changes in regime policies. Particularly in the case of state legislative reform, the research contribution made by political scientists has been distinctively modest. To the greatest extent, this is probably due to the fact that other, more theoretical concerns have preoccupied political scientists, but to some extent it is the case because of conceptual and methodological difficulties. The implications for political science research relevant to state legislative reorganization which are widely

A Profile of the Japanese Conservative Party

Recently the Japanese conservative leaders have been discussing possible reforms of the party organization and electoral system. Various issues have been hotly debated. Among the points under discussion are-the functions of the Party Policy Investigation Board, the present structure of party management, the presidential election system, the method of party approval for official Diet candidates, local party organization, political contributions, intra-party factions, and the method of electing Representatives and Councillors. On occasion, these discussions have led to serious intra-party conflict, but little progress has been made in reaching agreeable solutions. There is no doubt, however, that the conservatives have raised the primary problems requiring resolution. In essence, these issues must be tackled if an integrated party organization is to be created which can cope with the gradual expansion of the Socialist Party. The Socialists also have a structurall reform plan aimed at strengthening the party so that it may come to power. This plan too has raised internal problems within the party. Thus, both major parties are struggling at the moment to resolve their internal problems. The struggle between two camps in Japanese politics is not new. The postwar political scene has been dominated by two opposing currentsthe conservative and the socialist, often called the progressive. Tn the fall of 1955, the conservative elements were finally organized into the Liberal-Demmocratic Party. This fusion was basically the result of internal and external reactions against the system of political control constructed by Prime Minister Yoshida during the Occupation era. The struggles among the conservatives after the end of the Occupation (1952) were very complicated, but they were mainly concerned with Yoshida his methods and the questions of his resignation and successor. Yoshida had strong support from the entrenched conservative element in the Diet. especially from those Diet members who had been officials. At the same time, increasing external pressure came from the socialists who had steadily increased the number of seats they held in each parliamentary election after 1949, and were watching for the opportunity to gain power by taking advantage of the internal conflicts among the conservatives. The socialists reunited in October 1955. This stimulated the conservatives into forming a huge, diffuse party in November of that year, with the Big FourHatoyama, Ogata, Miki and Ono as the acting board of directors. With the emergence of a two-party system, there was a perceptible change in the character of the conservative control in the post-Occupation period.