In the Kake controversy, the burden of proof was improperly reversed, forcing government officials into impossible defenses and eroding the foundations of evidence-based parliamentary debate.

Reversing the burden of proof turns reform into theater—and evidence into a casualty.

2017-07-13

The following continues from the previous chapter.

Another distortion has been allowed to prevail: the reversal of the burden of proof.

If Person A accuses Person B of a crime, the responsibility for explanation rests with Person A, who brings the accusation.

It is impossible for Person B to prove that he did nothing.

This type of problem is widely known as the “devil’s proof.”

Yet in the Diet, the Prime Minister and officials of the Cabinet Office were forced to give precisely such unreasonable answers.

Evidence-based principles and the burden of proof.

Perhaps realizing that such crude criticism might work on television talk shows but not in the Diet, factional politicians gradually shifted their attacks to a different angle.

They began to ask why Kake Gakuen was chosen and whether that choice could be justified.

Compared with the initial line of attack, this was somewhat more respectable as a policy argument.

As noted earlier, reform inevitably involves constant battles between reformers and resistance forces.

Within the National Strategic Special Zone framework, expert working groups were established alongside the advisory council to engage in ongoing discussions with relevant ministries.

If there was an entity seeking to establish a veterinary school, why did the Ministry of Education refuse approval, and was there any rational justification for doing so?

To such questions, the ministry failed to present any effective rebuttal.

All of these exchanges were recorded and made public in official minutes.

The next issue concerned institutional design: how many schools should be approved, and which regional projects should be selected.

Naturally, those pursuing reform believed it appropriate to approve multiple schools in order to promote competition.

At this point, however, resistance forces applied intense pressure.

As a result, the decision settled on approving a single school for the time being, thereby opening a narrow breach.

The limitation to one school was, in fact, a direct consequence of that pressure.

The process then moved on to project selection, and as part of accumulated discussions, four conditions for establishing a new veterinary school had been outlined in the growth strategy two years earlier.

This was a document formally approved by the cabinet.

Based on these conditions, the conclusion ultimately reached was Kake Gakuen.

This outcome was obvious to anyone and raised no objections within the advisory council or elsewhere.

For more than a decade, Kake Gakuen had repeatedly applied to establish a new faculty and had made thorough preparations.

Prospects for securing qualified staff were already in place.

In reality, there is a serious shortage of veterinarians, making the securing of personnel far from easy.

Even in the case of new medical schools, resistance forces had long claimed that there were enough doctors, only to argue the opposite once new schools were actually proposed, advancing contradictory criticisms without hesitation.

This essay continues.