The Kake Gakuen controversy illustrates how policy reform was overshadowed by media-driven uproar and political attacks that ignored basic principles of evidence-based debate.

When evidence is ignored, policy debate collapses into spectacle—and reform becomes the casualty.

2017-07-13

The following continues from the previous chapter.

The essence of the Kake issue.

The National Strategic Special Zones are a new framework created under the Abe administration.

They were designed to break through regulatory bedrock stubbornly defended by vested interests, factional politicians, and bureaucrats, under the leadership of the Prime Minister’s Office.

In response, some opposition parties and media outlets launched relentless criticism.

The first phase of criticism focused on the fact that Kake Gakuen, an institution personally close to the Prime Minister, was approved as a project operator.

An unidentified document was then produced, claiming that pressure had been applied, at the Prime Minister’s behest, from the Cabinet Office in charge of the special zone to the Ministry of Education, which held approval authority.

Some media outlets joined in, taking the role of inflaming the uproar.

This line of criticism was plainly unsophisticated.

Subsequently, disputes escalated into a messy spectacle, including the appearance of a former vice minister of education disputing the document’s authenticity.

Although investigations reportedly confirmed some elements, even if such documents existed, they do not in themselves constitute grounds for criticism.

Critics repeatedly seized upon the claim that there was “the Prime Minister’s intention.”

Yet breaking through regulatory bedrock has always been a core policy of the cabinet, clearly stated by the Prime Minister in the Diet.

Anyone can see that the veterinary school issue is a textbook example of regulatory bedrock.

Accordingly, it is entirely natural for the Cabinet Office overseeing special zones to engage in fierce battles with ministries resisting reform.

Reform is, by its nature, a series of such battles.

If policy is debated sincerely, there is neither preferential treatment nor unfair disadvantage simply because someone is a friend of the Prime Minister.

The crucial point is that this entire sequence of criticism violated the basic rules of proper debate.

In a mature civil society, the principle of evidence-based judgment is fundamental.

In judicial contexts, this is known as the principle of evidence-based adjudication, requiring solid proof when criticizing others or demanding accountability.

Yet from the outset, discussions surrounding Kake ignored this principle entirely.

This essay continues.