This essay, dated November 25, 2019, is based on an article by Sankei Shimbun editorial writer Naoya Kawamura.
It interprets the Diet debate over the “Cherry Blossom Viewing Party” through Huizinga’s Homo Ludens and Eto Jun’s idea of the world of “make-believe.”
It questions the priorities of a Diet that should be debating fundamental national issues such as the abductions, the Northern Territories, North Korean missiles, and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

November 25, 2019.
The president himself has put into words an opportunity for us to think.
Why not thoroughly debate the fundamental issues of the state?
The following is from an essay by editorial writer Naoya Kawamura, published in yesterday’s Sankei Shimbun under the title “Are You All Playing Children’s Games?”
“In order to crush the opponent into utter defeat, ‘duels’ are constantly being carried out among men of power.
But these have nothing whatever to do with the interests of the state, which they serve in a spirit of complete seriousness.”
The age of “infantilism.”
This is a passage from Homo Ludens, published in 1938, by the Dutch historian Huizinga.
“Homo Ludens” means “man the player,” and the quotation comes from a section touching on the playful element in politics.
It is not written with any especially negative meaning.
However, when one reads it together with the fact that immediately before this the historian calls several modern phenomena “infantilism,” it can be read in a chilling way.
Infantilism refers to such things as “the pursuit of crude sensations” and “delight in gigantic spectacles.”
I will not write at length.
From Mori-Kake, and now to a cherry-blossom-viewing Diet?
It cannot be denied that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe or those around him were careless on these issues.
What should be corrected should be corrected, and they should brace themselves again.
But the excitement of the main opposition parties, to put it bluntly, appears to this writer even more childish.
I am not saying that the issue of the Cherry Blossom Viewing Party should not be taken up.
How do the opposition members think about the order of priority for the issues that should be discussed in the Diet?
Japan has not been able to bring back the victims abducted by North Korea.
The same is true of the Northern Territories.
Or how should Japan deal with North Korea’s evolving missiles?
Such matters seem to have receded into the background in the Diet.
Returning to Huizinga, it seems to this writer that the Diet of our Japan is endlessly continuing childish games that have little relation to the important “interests of the state.”
The world of “make-believe.”
Let me quote another piece, “When the World of ‘Make-Believe’ Ended,” by the critic Eto Jun, published in the January 1970 issue of Shokun!
It is the “make-believe” of games such as tag.
“I cannot help feeling that modern Japanese society very much resembles this world of ‘make-believe.’”
“So long as ‘the United States,’ as one existing entity, hangs over us and remains attached to the tip of our consciousness, the Japanese cannot escape from this world of ‘make-believe.’”
According to Eto, in order for “make-believe” to exist, adults must keep their distance and promise protection.
If adults bring out a “real demon,” make-believe can no longer exist.
It is clear that Eto regarded this “adult” as equivalent to “the United States.”
In fact, we must acknowledge that this is so.
In facing North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles, Japan has no choice but to rely heavily, though perhaps not entirely, on the United States.
That is the postwar security system itself.
But to speak in Eto’s manner, this adult keeps its distance.
Japan is considered “quite an ordinary independent country, or even more than that,” in Eto’s words.
Eto’s sensitivity in finding “make-believe” in the behavior of that independent country was sharp.
What are the priority issues of national politics?
The year before last, when the Diet was making a great fuss over the Moritomo and Kake Gakuen issues, was also a time when North Korea was continuing to launch ballistic missiles and conduct nuclear tests.
Nevertheless, our Diet was making a great fuss about Mori and Kake.
I repeat, I am not saying that these matters should not be discussed.
I am saying that we should think about the priority issues of national politics.
This time’s cherry-blossom-viewing Diet comes only a little more than four months after U.S. President Trump declared that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was unfair.
Although the president denied it, it was also reported that he had referred to terminating the treaty.
How have these issues been discussed in the Diet since then?
A state consists of sovereignty, people, and territory.
Sovereignty is the right to govern the people and the territory independently.
At least this writer does not think that a country that still cannot recover by its own strength either the abducted victims or the Northern Territories is a true sovereign state.
The president himself has put into words an opportunity for us to think.
Why not thoroughly debate the fundamental issues of the state?
In the piece quoted above, Eto writes that when a child sees the weight of reality from within a make-believe game and comes to himself, he sings this.
I’m gonna tell, I’m gonna tell, I’m gonna tell the teacher….
The childish attitude of make-believe certainly calls forth a playful song.
No one would want to sing something like “The school of the killifish…”
Yet the recent Diet has been one in which such words almost come out of one’s mouth.
I urge the members of the Diet to awaken to their responsibility.
Naoya Kawamura.