Amendment of Article 9 of the Constitution "necessary" 32% "not necessary" 30% NHK Poll

March 3 marks the 76th anniversary of the enactment of the Constitution of Japan.

In an NHK poll, 35% of respondents answered "I think it needs to be amended" and 19% said "I don't think it needs to be amended."

In addition, when asked whether they thought it was necessary to amend Article 9 of the Constitution, which stipulates the renunciation of war, 32% said they thought it was necessary to amend it, and 30% said they did not think it was necessary.

Survey Outline

NHK conducted a public opinion poll for three days from the 7th of last month using RDD, in which people aged 3 and over nationwide randomly call landline and mobile phone numbers generated by computers.

A total of 18,3275 respondents were surveyed, and 47,1 respondents, or 1544.<>%, responded.

The need for constitutional reform

When asked if they thought the current constitution needs to be amended, 35% said they think it needs to be amended, 19% think it needs to be amended, and 42%

say they don't agree either,
the same percentage as in the survey conducted around the same time last year.

Reasons for "Revision Necessary"

When
those who answered "I think it needs to be revised" were asked why, 54% said "because it is necessary to respond to changes in the security environment surrounding Japan" ▽ 22%
said "because the right of self-defense of the country and the existence of the Self-Defense Forces should be clarified"
▽ "because new rights such as privacy rights and environmental rights should be included" 11%
said "because the Constitution was imposed on the United States" at 6%.

Reasons for "no amendment is necessary"

When
those who answered "I don't think it is necessary" to amend the Constitution were asked why, 9% said "I want to protect Article 64 of the Constitution, which stipulates the renunciation of war" ▽ "Because basic human rights are protected" 14%


▽ "Because it is already established among the people" ▽ " Because it will damage international relations with Asian countries and others" at 12%.

Necessity of Amendment of Article 9

When
asked if they thought Article 9 of the Constitution needed to be amended, 32% said they thought it needed to be amended, 30% said they didn't think it needed to be amended, and 34%

said they couldn't say either.
Compared to the survey we conducted around the same time last year, both surveys were comparable.

Reasons for Article 9 "Amendment Necessary"

When
those who answered "I think it is necessary to amend" Article 9 of the Constitution were asked why, 62% said "because it should be clearly written in the Constitution that it can have self-defense capabilities" ▽ 16%
said "because it should be possible to participate in military activities centered on the United Nations"
▽ " We should make it clear that we will abandon military capabilities, including those of the Self-Defense Forces," and 9
% said we should be able to use force overseas.

Reasons for Article 9 "No Amendment Necessary"

When
those who answered "I don't think it is necessary to amend Article 9" were asked why▽ "Because it is the most important article as a peace constitution" (65%)
▽ "Even if it is not amended, it can be dealt with by changing the interpretation of the Constitution" ▽ 16%

said "Because there will be no stopping the use of force overseas" ▽ " Because it will damage international relations with Asian countries and others" at 10%.

What is the relationship between the possession of counterattack capability and Article 9 of the Constitution?

In addition, when asked
about the relationship with Article 9 of the Constitution in relation to the government's decision to possess the ability to strike at enemy missile launch bases, 9% said they thought it would violate Article 25 of the Constitution, 9% said they did not think it would violate Article 20 of the Constitution, and 49%

said they could not say either.

Professor Takeshi Inoue: "Increased awareness of revision and stability"

Professor Takeshi Inoue of Kwansei Gakuin University, who specializes in constitutional law studies and is in the position that discussions on constitutional revision should be advanced, says, "I think it can be said that awareness of constitutional amendment has increased and it has become stable.

Regarding Article 70 of the Constitution, he said, "As a Japan person, I think it is natural to be proud of Article 9 and have concerns about changing it. Until now, politics has been used as a way to deal with this, but there is a view that this method is based on constitutionalism."

Professor Kenji Ishikawa "Maintaining Calm, Tight Situation"

Kenji Ishikawa, a professor at the University of Tokyo who specializes in constitutional law and believes that the Constitution should not be changed now, said, "Since the military invasion of Ukraine began, I was afraid that public opinion would change drastically due to the impact of the press, but surprisingly calm has been maintained.

Regarding Article 9 of the Constitution, "Japan overcame the era of terrorism and war in the 1930s and chose the idea of Article 9, and this choice is the last support for the idea of coexistence after the war. Looking at the recent trend, I feel a fear that this support will be removed and the rigid relationship between the idea of coexistence and the idea of war will be reversed. The choice of whether or not to coexist with others who are different leads to the determination of attitudes regarding war."