Reshuffling the political industry.

When the leader of the main opposition party in Japan said he would resign, I first thought it was the beginning of a much-needed radical reshuffling of the "political industry" in Japan, contrary to what many critics and most media are saying.

He cited a couple of reasons for his decision to step down, but some notable points are him admitting that the Democratic Party (DPJ) still does not have enough strength to run a government, followed by presenting an idea of entering into positive talks with the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) about lawmaking, even hinting the possibility of a team-up. While DPJ's victory in the upper house (House of Councillors) elections that took place this summer represented a significant boost for the young party, effectively blocking the LDP from passing laws, ironically, the same could be said the other way around, as the LDP still controls the majority of seats in the lower house (House of Representatives), thus creating a political stalemate. Of course, the law says the lower house can pass laws even if the upper house vetoes it, but the LDP will not dare to do that, knowing how much criticism they would be receiving immediately afterwards.

In Japan, many speak of the advance the DPJ has made as the dawn of an era of a two-party system in Japan. However, if you look at the DPJ, it's just a cluster of former smaller opposition parties that joined together just because they weren't big enough to beat the dominant LDP in elections. So still, if you look at the members, some really have different views and ideas. Mr. Ozawa probably had this reality in mind that they at least aren't ready now to run a country. But then again, a similar comment could also be said with the LDP, since they are made up of nine factions that often compete against each other, though an increasing number of politicians do not belong to any. This said, I personally strongly believe that a radical reshuffling, or a reorganization in politics should be made. The resignation had the potential to spark this.

Many speak of DPJ's leader Ichiro Ozawa as a backroom dealer, but he has clear views and knows what he wants to do and what needs to get done. Politicians who have a clear picture should have their own parties with their own ideas with fellow politicians who share very similar views. However, the reality is, they just continue to cling to the LDP or DPJ, just for the sake of the support (including the financial part) they're eligible to receive when it comes to elections. But, we all have to remember that politics is for the benefit of the citizens and not the politicians themselves. Right?

Had Mr. Ozawa resigned and formed his own party with his colleagues who share similar views with him, independent from both the DPJ and LDP, it could have started a major reshuffling. After all, there are politicians in both parties who are likely to agree with him on a lot of terms. But well, he has somehow gone back to the chair. Now, he must be prepared for all the criticism he will be receiving especially through the media, in a country where the media has so much influence on the people. He might have changed his opportunity to instead be the beginning of an end of his career, at least in politics. But, I had hopes, yes, hopes... :-)

Social entrepreneurship.

I'm seeing this word more and more often these days...

A glimpse of the word may give you a weird feeling, as the words "social" and "enterprise" aren't often seen in the same sentence... well, at least until now they weren't. But today, an increasing number of people in Japan are showing interest in doing something for the society. Hence the popularity of jobs in the fields such as international cooperation. However, up until maybe a couple of years ago, these activities were thought to be exclusive to the non-profits and the government. Well, times have changed.

We have many global issues. Some of them are small, while others are bigger. Many people notice them, and some of them stand up and say "I've gotta do something about this." However, for them to really get down in the mud and get some things done takes more preparedness than just saying it, because (1) you need a lot of time, (2) you need manpower, and (3) you need to make your own living. But one who is willing to do all of this while simultaneously staying true to the passion to work for these global, social issues, I call a "social entrepreneur".

Whether it's a private business or a non-profit organization, it must be a sustainable one for it to continue pursuing what it has to do. You need time, manpower, finance, and those resources also have to be managed effectively and put into use in the best way possible. So, I believe a business-like approach is essential for the non-profits too, the only difference between a business being whether its ultimate mission is to make money or to make positive changes to the society.

But then again, existing businesses are also changing. Long term survival in the industry has become more challenging than ever before. They need to thoroughly understand who their customers are and what they truly want. They all need to find their niche. And, catering to the specific needs of those people can sometimes also be considered doing something for the society. Ah... heading towards becoming "social enterprises"?

Of course, all of this depends on how one defines the word "society". And though many organizations will still remain like an ordinary NPO or an ordinary business, I believe the differences and the disconnects between those two will continue to erode, in a very positive sense. :-)

What the news on Burma tells us about the Japanese media.

How many times has the word "Myanmar" made it to the headlines of newspapers in Japan?

Not sure... but I'm pretty sure it's one digit.
And, I don't think it has happened for over a decade.

So it was amazing and fascinating to see news about the recent movements in Burma (Myanmar) on the very front pages of newspapers on September 28th, and some also on the 29th. All news programs covered the news on those days, and even the LCDs on the Yamanote Line trains were broadcasting it. But, this all came at the expense of a life of a Japanese humanitarian journalist, named Kenji Nagai, who had become a victim of one of the clashes in Burma a few days earlier.

Without his death, how many people would have even known the name of the country?

Dozens of crises still exist around the globe, and the Japanese media has so far done little to tell those stories. There are still many crises that have yet to be reported. If you look at the international sections of the newspapers, it's pretty obvious that they focus so much on North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Of course, that's natural, but we have to always keep in mind that the world is much larger than that.

Japanese news is so domestically-directed, so to speak. A lot of the news is very local. Most of them cover things that occur inside Japan. There are couple of reasons I can think of, but the biggest reason is probably because Japan is not a multi-racial nation. It's also an island, geographically isolated from the Asian continent, and has a history of having closed its doors to the rest of the world in the Edo era with just a few exceptions... this might also represent the character of this race. Not sure how much this is related to the topic, but anyway, the majority of the people do not feel the need to know what's going on in places like Darfur or Burma, at least not until it involves a life of a person who is Japanese.

To add further to that, most of the programs on TV are those viewers want to see. The latest "trends" of the people have so much influence on TV programs here. Of course, the private TV stations always have to keep the sponsors happy, so it is often difficult, but how about NHK, the biggest public broadcaster and by far also the largest Japanese broadcaster overall? Why do they have to care about viewing rates? There is no need to worry about pressure from sponsors, so in my opinion, they should concentrate on telling people what we really need to know, from an ethical and moral point of view. I feel they are the only organization that has the capability to truly pursue that job, both financially and technologically, and I believe that is their niche, and their social responsibility. :-)

Comparing the non-profit sector.

With organizations such as Peace Corps and Teach For America getting a lot of attention nationwide, I don't think it's an overstatement to say that the non-profit sector has grown to become one big industry in the United States. Over 1.6 million non-profit organizations (NPOs)... now that's an amazing number.

How about in Japan? Um, not so close. Well... not close at all.

Of course, comparing the numbers directly is unfair and incorrect, since the term "non-profit organization" varies between countries. For example, in the US, hospitals, universities, and religious groups are also categorized as NPOs by the laws over there. But even considering that, there's a vast difference.

Why? Well, I've come up with 3 major reasons.

One, there's no Bill Gates in Japan. Many people in Japan have been complaining of economic disparity in recent years, and though it is true that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, the difference is still minute compared to other so-called developed countries. After all, Japan has a tendency of giving equality priority over fairness, but this leads to another story so I'll stop with this here... Anyway, when I say there's no Bill Gates, I mean by there are no billionaires in Japan. So compared to the US, there is much less money people can give away.

Two, there's a big difference in law. While I've already pointed out that the definition of NPO covers a more extensive area in the US, there's another big difference: tax. In the US, if you donate to an NPO, you're exempt from paying tax for the amount that you donated. In Japan you're not. Actually, a similar law exists, but has only been applied to about 30 NPOs so far. Simple, but big difference. No wonder big companies and billionaires in the US give off a lot of money to foundations and other NPOs if they don't have any big business plans for the near term.

Three, the culture and values of the people are different. I can list many examples here... One example is, in Japan, though many people are often angered by the way the government handles its responsibilities, the people still put a lot of trust on them. For instance, in the US, the majority of people would prefer to cooperate with NPOs than a government-affiliated organization such as USAID, but in Japan, many would prefer to work with JICA (the Japanese counterpart of USAID) than NPOs. Same with the regular private, business sector. For example for cellphones, the majority of people still prefer to use NTT, the successor to the communications arm of the government.

The religion is different. Donations and charities play a key role in religious activities in the US such as in Christianity, and religion also remains a big part in one's life, or at least bigger than in Japan. Here, the majority of people don't care too much, which can obviously be seen from the fact that there are as many Buddhist temples as Shinto ones and many people don't have preferences about which to go to. Of course, this is more complicated than I've said, but I won't get off track for now. People donate to temples, but the money flow stops there. The temples don't do charity kind of work. I also feel something like a natural "charity culture" in Christians.

Then there are differences in values. I think more people care about being socially responsible in the US than in Japan. Again, this is just a comparison and I don't mean everyone in the US does and everyone in Japan doesn't. But, here in Japan, more people are concerned about how to make their own lives better. However, this is starting to change though... which is the good news. An increasing number of companies are teaming up with NPOs and publishing corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. Of course, some do this for the sake of building a better corporate image, but nonetheless, when few companies start, others will have to follow... :-)