This article presents an interview with House of Representatives member Eiichiro Washio, conducted by political commentator Shigenobu Tamura and published in the monthly magazine Hanada. Drawing on his years inside the Democratic Party, Washio describes its predominantly left-wing character, hostility toward bureaucrats, deliberate delays in submitting question notices, and parliamentary tactics driven by television exposure.

September 7, 2020
The following is excerpted from an interview feature titled “What I Learned in the Opposition: The Inside Story of the Opposition Parties That Betray Japan,” published in the monthly magazine Hanada, in which political commentator Shigenobu Tamura interviewed House of Representatives member Eiichiro Washio.
It has been reported that the proposed merger between the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and the Democratic Party for the People ran into difficulties, and that Yuichiro Tamaki, leader of the Democratic Party for the People, chose to split the party.
It is only natural that Tamaki, who values principles and policies, should act as he has.
However, both Yukio Edano, leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party, and Tamaki are merely trying to launch new parties as a general election approaches, deceive the public, and survive the election.
Was it not a difference of positions within the Democratic Party for the People over how to survive the election that led to the turmoil surrounding the party split?
What I am watching closely is the relationship between Rengo and the Communist Party.
Rengo and the Communist Party are fundamentally like oil and water.
How, then, will the new party and Rengo, which supports it, define their relationship with the Communist Party?
There must be many conscientious rank-and-file union members who dislike cooperating with the Communist Party merely for electoral advantage.
【Nothing but Outrageous Leftists】
In March of last year, I joined the Liberal Democratic Party.
In 2005, when I was twenty-eight, I ran as the Democratic Party’s officially endorsed candidate in my home constituency of Niigata’s second district and was elected for the first time.
The media reported that I had broken Kakuei Tanaka’s record and become the youngest Diet member in Niigata Prefecture.
However, once I entered the Democratic Party, I was appalled by the enormous gap between the image I had held beforehand and the party’s actual character.
An overwhelming majority of its members were left-wing.
At the time, the Democratic Party was in opposition.
Nevertheless, Edano supported revising Article 9 of the Constitution; Yukio Hatoyama argued that Japan should create a new constitution; Seiji Maehara repeatedly and openly stated that the right of collective self-defense should be recognized; and Ichiro Ozawa went so far as to argue that the Self-Defense Forces should be used within a system of collective security.
Even from outside the party, its conservative ideas appeared to be at the forefront, and I felt that it was clearly different from the old Socialist Party.
National security policy is the key to creating a two-party system.
“This party could become one of two realistic major parties.”
With that belief, I applied through the Democratic Party’s open recruitment process.
Nobusuke Kishi, whom I respect, advocated the necessity of two-party politics.
Believing that a single-member constituency system was necessary to achieve it, when he became prime minister and party president, he actually proposed to the secretary-general of the Socialist Party, “Let us change to a single-member constituency system.”
With such a system, capable people would not be concentrated exclusively in the Liberal Democratic Party, and the opposition would also be able to engage in responsible debate.
Competition between political parties would improve Japanese politics.
Deeply impressed by Kishi’s thinking, I strongly wanted to enter the Democratic Party and help establish a two-party system.
In the section of the application form headed “My Aspiration,” I strongly emphasized my conservatism by writing, “Education based on the Imperial Rescript on Education as a reference.”
Because the Democratic Party was willing to endorse someone like me in a constituency, I expected it to be what would now be called a party that respected diversity, one in which realistic discussions could be conducted and reflected in policy.
But I was naïve.
Once inside, I found nothing but outrageous leftists.
The gap was staggering.
No matter what I said, I was treated as a complete eccentric.
From the time I joined the party, I spoke actively on such issues as the comfort women issue and the Nanjing Incident.
On the comfort women issue, I formed a parliamentary group within the party with Shu Watanabe and others.
We interviewed former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobuo Ishihara and clarified that the comfort women issue had been a political product.
Yet when we tried to share those findings within the party, they had no impact whatsoever.
Conservatives like us constituted only a tiny minority, while an overwhelming majority were staunch leftists.
Even so, I tried to increase the number of our allies, but there was not the slightest sign that their numbers would grow.
The change of government came in 2009, during my second term in office.
As is widely known, however, the Democratic Party’s careless administration caused public support to disappear almost instantly.
I had sensed this from my first term, when the party was still in opposition.
Senior Democratic Party members—Naoto Kan was a symbolic example—displayed extraordinary hostility toward bureaucrats.
Out of the arrogance that “bureaucrats are fools, while we are smarter and can do a better job,” they subjected bureaucrats to relentless public denunciation even at party committee meetings.
Because public support for the Democratic Party was high before the change of government, they probably became deluded into thinking, “What we are doing is right.”
【Deliberately Delaying Question Notices】
After losing power, they should have learned from that experience and built a sound relationship with bureaucrats.
But look at the opposition today.
They summon bureaucrats to waiting rooms in the Diet that are not official committee rooms and where they possess no particular authority, bring in television cameras, and denounce them with demands such as, “Hand over the documents!”
I truly feel sorry for the bureaucrats.
The party’s nature has not changed at all.
If anything, it has become even worse.
Because they continually subject officials to the same monotonous public denunciations, the public reacts with exasperation: “Are they doing that again?”
Yet they are completely unaware of this.
They are convinced that such behavior will increase their approval ratings.
I hear that talented young bureaucrats are leaving Kasumigaseki one after another.
This is nothing but a loss to the nation.
Regarding advance notice of parliamentary questions, I saw more than enough senior Democratic Party members deliberately delay submitting their notices.
I will never forget what happened when, during my first term, I was preparing to ask a question in the Diet for the first time.
Everything was new to me, I did not know how anything worked, and I was nervous even about giving notice of my questions.
A bureaucrat said to me, “Please allow us to come and receive your questions.”
Although I did not yet fully understand the procedure, I responded sincerely.
Then a senior Democratic Party lawmaker said to me:
“You don’t have to give them such careful advance notice of your questions!”
I could not understand why anyone would deliberately delay the notice or do something intended to cause trouble for bureaucrats.
I refused to follow that instruction to the end, so the senior members must have thought, “Washio is insolent.”
Looking at today’s opposition, such conduct is being carried out in increasingly egregious forms.
Including in its dealings with bureaucrats, the opposition is not adopting the sound and responsible attitude necessary to regain power.
【Thinking of Nothing but Television Wide Shows】
The same applies to Diet management.
After losing power, how did they manage Diet proceedings?
They allocated question time according to whether a particular exchange would attract viewers on the following day’s television wide shows.
In other words, the opposition’s Diet Affairs Committee thought only about how its members could appear on television and how they could get television programs to feature them.
It was, so to speak, encouraging politics driven by television wide shows.
I was never selected as a member of the Budget Committee.
Therefore, in January, while the Budget Committee was in session, I walked from house to house through my snow-covered home district in Niigata and continued listening directly to the voices of voters.
I received many harsh comments, including, “What is your party asking about?” and “There are more important questions your party ought to be asking.”
When I reported those comments exactly as I had heard them to the party leadership, what did they say to me?
“Who do you think you are, saying something so insolent? If you keep saying such insolent things, we won’t let you appear on television!”
That was the reality.
Other opposition lawmakers may also have reluctantly followed the wishes of these party leaders, but I, at least, continued to resist.
“I see. In that case, I will keep walking through my home district.”
With those words, I continued steadfastly visiting one house after another in my constituency.
During my twelve years and four terms in the opposition, I was the only member who never once asked a question in the Budget Committee and never once questioned the government in a setting where television cameras were present.
Looking back now, however, I am truly glad that I continued my activities honestly and steadfastly without compromising my principles.
The leaders from that period remain leaders of the opposition today.
They are still only in their fifties or early sixties, so they will probably continue occupying leadership positions in the opposition.
In other words, the fundamental nature of the opposition will remain entirely unchanged.
Instead of constructive debate in the Diet, it will continue with one-sided criticism of the government and the public denunciation of bureaucrats.
To be continued.