Later, the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 recognized the challenge of promoting the advancement and empowerment of women. The Conference adopted the Beijing Declaration and the Beijing Platform for Action, explicitly stated that women’s rights were universal rights, and acknowledged things such as the right to control matters related to one’s own sexuality, the importance of economic independence for women, and the relationship between women’s rights and peace. Since then, it has focused attention on eliminating violence particularly toward women and establishing the legitimate evaluation of women’s labor on a par with that of men. To that end, Japan passed the Basic Act for a Gender-Equal Society in 1999 and the Act on the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims in 2001. In accordance with the Basic Act for a Gender-Equal Society, the government formulated a Basic Plan for Gender Equality in order to promote the creation of a gender-equal society.
In December 2010, the Cabinet approved the Third Basic Plan for Gender Equality. This sets out the direction of far-sighted long-term policy until 2020 along with concrete measures to be implemented by 2015. In it, the government has established priority areas to deal with changes in socioeconomic conditions, set targets in each priority area to make a viable action plan, promoted efforts aimed at having women in at least around 30% of leadership positions by 2020, and emphasized the socioeconomic rejuvenation and the “M-shaped curve issue” resolution that would result from increased female activity. The first of the 15 priority areas is the “enlargement of female participation in the decision-making processes for policies and administrative measures,” and the government is examining positive action in all fields, including politics and the judiciary, through a range of methods such as quotas and initiatives toward the goal of “30% by 2020.”
However, there seem to be a number of difficulties with the introduction of such a system of voluntary quotas by political parties in Japan. First of all, what happened in Sweden, Norway and Germany was that the system was introduced in one party before gradually spread to other parties, and it took about two decades until all the parties had adopted it. We would be waiting for a very long time if we relied solely on such self-initiative in Japan’s political parties. In our case, I believe we need compulsory measures or inducement measures so that all parties introduce such a system in some form or other. Secondly, Sweden, Norway and Germany did not only increase the proportion of their female legislature members, but simultaneously conducted gender mainstreaming to try to build a better working environment for women. It is because men there have taken on more family responsibilities and made it easier for women to work as lawmakers that the latter have increased. In light of this, Japan would at the same time require substantial policies to bring in things such as child support and care support. Third, we need more women who aspire to join the legislature. We therefore have to make people more aware that lawmakers have an attractive job in which they contribute to society by creating better policies. Fourth, putting in women just to make up the numbers could actually damage women’s reputation rather than make use of their abilities. There needs to be a mechanism for consistently developing female candidate lawmakers. Finally, Sweden and Norway have adopted proportional representation, and Germany mixed-member proportional representation, in their electoral systems. Proportional representation is more adaptable to quota systems, but if used alongside a single-member district system as in Japan, knowing how to effectively incorporate a quota system becomes a major issue.
*My research for this article includes the “2011 White Paper on Gender Equality” from the Gender Equality Bureau of the Cabinet Office, along with various related websites.