Japan between the first and second world wars. Political system of Japan Foreign policy of Japan during the establishment of the fascist dictatorship

Japan to the beginningXXV.

Japan, like China, belongs to the Confucian civilization, but its history is much less ancient. The first legendary emperor, Jimmu, the son of the sun goddess Amaterasu, ascended the throne only in 660 BC. e.

Japan at one time borrowed a lot from China: the culture of agriculture, growing rice, tea; calendar, writing. Even the official language in Japan since the 13th century. became Kambun - an ancient Chinese written language.

The history of Japan, however, is strikingly different from China. If China has always strived for balance and stability in order to guarantee survival for everyone, then Japan, due to the almost complete absence of fossil resources and more severe conditions for survival, could not guarantee this for everyone.

Therefore, the strategic goal in Japan was survival within the strongest group. These were clans or principalities that were always at war with each other. There were over 300 of them; the loser found himself in the complete power of the winner, who could completely or partially destroy the vanquished. Everyone understood that survival depended on the strength of the clan's power and did everything in their power to make the principality stronger. Therefore, a characteristic feature of the traditional social system in Japan was the extraordinary cohesion of the classes (samurai, peasants and townspeople) within the principality, the desire to act effectively in a group.

A unified state emerged in Japan only at the beginning of the 17th century, when one of the princes of the Tokugawa clan gained the upper hand in a long-term internecine struggle. The era of the Tokugawa shogunate began.

The cessation of internal strife for some time had a beneficial effect on the situation in the country, but at the same time led to the loss of some traditional principles of organizing life. The crisis of the regime was also aggravated by the “forced opening” of Japan in 1854, after which several treaties that infringed on the country’s sovereignty were imposed on the country.

In 1868 G. The shogun was overthrown, power was transferred to the hands of the emperor - Mutsuhito. This event went down in history as the restoration of Meiji (Mutsuhito's name).

Thanks to the series important reforms(Meiji reforms) Japan managed to create modern industry and a strong army, and borrow many elements of its civilization from the West. However, this borrowing was not blind.

Having started with the creation of so-called model enterprises in leading sectors of the economy, the state unexpectedly decided in 1880 to transfer them into private hands. But it soon turned out that the industry was still under state tutelage. Private enterprises continued to enjoy privileges: tax discounts, preferential loans, carried out government orders and even regularly received subsidies from the state.

Such an economic system only superficially resembled the West. In fact, there was no market economy in Japan, since there was no incentive to update production, improve the quality of goods, or production efficiency. Given the narrowness of the domestic market, sales were guaranteed only by state demand. Poor quality Japanese goods could not find sales in foreign markets, so Japan, from the end of the 19th century. took the path of aggression.

Since the 80s XIX century There is nationalist propaganda in the country aimed at strengthening Shintoism as the state religion and the cult of the emperor. In 1882, the emperor issued a special rescript addressed to soldiers and sailors, emphasizing the moral unity of the army with the emperor, the role of duty and discipline.

In the eyes of the population, the prestige of the emperor's power was determined by his “divine origin”, and not by the personal qualities of the leader; Moreover, his detachment from political life was constantly emphasized.

For a long time, Japan resisted the ideas of democracy, since they contradicted national traditions: the elected, specially designed for this should govern, and ordinary people should not even try to influence these processes.

In 1889, the Constitution was adopted, parliament was introduced, and the struggle of political parties began, but all this did not take root well in Japan. Petitions were sent to the Emperor with demands to abolish the Constitution and disperse parliament and political parties. The political parties themselves did not have strong roots in society, were not based on any principles, but were representatives of the economic interests of private concerns (Mitsubishi, Mitsui, etc.) - this is exactly how they were perceived in Japan.

At the very end of the 19th century. - early 20th century Internal political strife has subsided. The country united on the basis of an aggressive foreign policy. At this time, nationalist propaganda was growing, and emphasis was placed on Japan’s “civilizing mission” in Asia. Even the war with China (1894-1895) was portrayed as an altruistic action against a “backward” China in favor of a Korea seeking “modernization.”

After Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), Japan included Korea as part of its territory (1911). A period of rapid economic development in Japan began: the volume of its GNP more than doubled by 1914. In 1911, the last of the discriminatory treaties limiting the country's customs independence was abolished. Soon the First World War began, in which Japan took part on the side of the Entente.

"Golden Age" of the Japanese economy (1914-1918)

By declaring war on Germany and its allies, Japan limited its participation in military operations. The German-owned islands of Micronesia (Marshall, Caroline and Mariana) and the German naval base in China - Qingdao - were captured. Fortunately, this was easy to do, given the small number of German garrisons there.

Japan sought to take advantage of the situation, when the attention of other powers was diverted by events in Europe, and to strengthen its position in China. Under the pretext of the fight against Germany in 1915. The entire province of Shandong (the German sphere of influence in which Qingdao was located) was occupied. A document known as the “21 Demands” was imposed on the weak Chinese government, which ensured Japanese dominance in China.

But Japan received the main benefits due to the fact that the flow of industrial goods from Europe decreased: markets in Asia began to accept even low-quality Japanese goods. Japan's exports increased several times during the First World War - it was not without reason that this time was called the “golden age” of the Japanese economy. Goods from Japan acquired a lasting reputation for being low in quality but cheap - they flooded the markets of Asian countries, including the colonies of European countries.

The capacity of shipbuilding and heavy industry in general grew especially quickly - Japan supplied weapons and equipment to the Entente countries. It was then that Japanese shipbuilding took first place in the world in terms of production volumes.

The financial situation has improved sharply: cash flows into the country from increased exports. By the end of the war, Japan had the second largest gold reserves in the world (after the United States). It can be stated that Japan (along with the United States) received the greatest economic benefits from the First World War: its GNP increased fivefold, from 13 to 65 billion yen.

But has the structure of the Japanese economy changed qualitatively, has production efficiency increased - these questions should be answered in the negative. During the war years, no technical re-equipment of enterprises in Japan was carried out - it was necessary to take advantage of the extremely favorable market conditions. The technological gap with Western countries has increased. The more strongly the Japanese economy should have felt the consequences of the return of European powers to Asian markets, which was inevitably going to happen after the end of the war.

ІІ . Economic adaptation and internal politicalprocesses

Consequences of Japan's displacement from Asian markets

After the war, European goods began to gradually return to Asian markets. Moreover, in a number of European countries, after the end of hostilities, a radical technical reconstruction of production was carried out, which ensured greater industrial superiority of Europe over Japan. It is clear that Japanese goods could not compete in such conditions.

But this did not happen immediately: only in 1920 did Japan feel the consequences of competition - its exports fell by 20%. In certain industries, the decline was especially large: mechanical engineering fell by 60%, mining by 50%, and shipbuilding even by 90%.

During the war years, inflation jumped sharply. Increased prices for rice caused the “rice riots” that swept across Japan in 1918. In 1919, the unauthorized seizure of land by peasants began. Strikes were held in the cities; in general, they were successful: in 1919, workers managed to achieve an 8-hour working day, improved working conditions, and higher wages; workers received the right to form trade unions.

Another reason for the difficulties was that China began to make diplomatic demands for the liberation of Japanese-occupied Shandong. After the events of May 4, 1919, a massive boycott of Japanese goods unfolded in China in protest against the “21 demands” imposed on the country. This dealt a significant blow to Japanese exports.

At the international conference in Washington (1921 - 1922), Japan found itself in diplomatic isolation; even its old ally, England, did not support it. As a result, Japan was forced to liberate Shandong and officially renounce the priority of its interests in China.

Everything taken together (the displacement of Japanese goods from foreign markets, diplomatic isolation, forced withdrawal from China) led to the development of a sense of xenophobia among the Japanese population. The impression was formed (and it was strongly fueled by government propaganda) that the Japanese were being deliberately forced out, that the West simply “does not like” them, and therefore “oppresses” them.

At the beginning of the 1920s. It’s time for the left to revive: many different groups and organizations are emerging. In July 1922, they united into the Japanese Communist Party, led by the famous socialist S. Katayama.

On September 1, 1923, Japan was struck by a natural disaster of exceptional magnitude - a catastrophic earthquake in the capital. The city of Tokyo was almost completely destroyed - only 150 thousand people died, 4 million people lost their homes. A state of emergency was declared in the country and the activities of all political forces were suspended. ,

This tragic event helped end the economic recession. Restoration work stimulated demand for labor, and enterprises received the usual subsidies from the government. At the end of 1923, economic recovery began. Exports also increased due to the depreciation of the national currency (yen). As a result, by 1925, the Japanese economy had again reached the level of 1919 - the highest since the end of the First World War.

Expansion of domestic political democracy

Even before the outbreak of World War I, leading theorists of the Japanese monarchy tried to justify Japan's exceptional historical experience and its great destiny. According to one of them, U. Hattori, it is to create a “new unified culture” for all humanity.

Justifying Japanese specifics (“kokutai”), prof. T. Inoui exalted the original Japanese morality as the embodiment of the precepts of Confucius. Another prof. Tokyo University, Y. Hozumi, put forward the concept of the so-called “natural state - family”. He proved the difference between Japan and all other countries in the world, emphasizing the specifics of its state structure. It, in his opinion, lies in the fact that the ownership of supreme power by the emperor follows from local traditions and is reinforced by the “trust of the nation,” in contrast to Europe, where monarchs were only rulers on behalf of their peoples, committed to the ideas of democracy.

On the eve of the war, in 1912, Emperor Meiji dies. This was preceded by an event that shocked all of Japan - an assassination attempt on the emperor in 1911. Rumors spread among the people that the imminent death of the emperor was connected with this. A new era of Emperor Taisho (1912-1926) began in Japan.

During the war years, the unique political regime in Japan further strengthened. The leading role in all power structures was played by people from the four southern clans (Satsuma, Tosa, Teshu and Hizen). Members of these clans joined the bureaucracy, the army and naval corps, were members of the Council of Genro (elders) and the Privy Council, and were closely associated with representatives of the business community and the private sector. There could be no talk of any expansion of democracy, especially since what unfolded in Japan back in the 19th century. The “movement for freedom and people’s rights” never became widespread because it contradicted traditions.

After the end of the war, propaganda about the theory of Japanese racial superiority began to expand. According to this theory, they stand at the head of a family of Asian peoples, armed with the ideals of the "Yamato race." The peoples of the West were declared “barbarians” and cultural antipodes of the Asian ones.

One of the Kokutai ideologists, S. Uesugi, argued in 1919 that “the mission of the Japanese Empire is to save all human civilization.” Japanese newspapers wrote in 1920 that “the main goal is to extend the power of the Emperor of Japan to the whole world.”

By that time, Japan did not really intend to liberate occupied Shandong in China and the territories in the Soviet Far East, where Japanese troops had landed during the civil war. Nevertheless, with the end of the First World War, hopes for democratization of the political regime were revived in the country.

In 1919, the property qualification for participation in elections was reduced. The number of voters in Japan doubled (but only to 3 million out of a population of 56 million). A powerful movement developed in Japan for the withdrawal of troops from the territory of Soviet Russia; the initiators were business circles who feared the further strengthening of the military caste and bureaucracy in the context of continued tense international relations. The troops were withdrawn in October 1922, diplomatic relations with the USSR were established in January 1925.

After the war, Japan essentially faced an alternative: further democratize the political regime or tighten traditional structures. Among the liberal-minded intelligentsia, Tatsukite Minobe’s theory of “the emperor as an organ of the state” became widespread. A leading expert on constitutional law, T. Minobe, even on the eve of the war, without denying the “divine status of the emperor,” argued that the supreme ruler in his actions proceeds not from personal interests, but from the interests of the entire nation. In the early 1920s. his concept was included in officially recognized university textbooks: in Japan, the idea began to be established that government was created by the people to express their will as the will of the state.

Sakuzo Yoshino’s teaching on democracy “mimponshugi” also played a major role in Japan. This term, invented by the author, meant that the state takes care of the general welfare, and the government takes into account the opinion of the people. In an article published back in 1916, S. Yoshino proclaimed three basic principles of democracy: guaranteed human rights, separation of powers and their wide election. He tried to prove that the unlimited power of the emperor inevitably leads to irresponsible cabinets and despotism of the bureaucracy. In November 1918, Yoshino won a discussion with representatives of the Roninkai society, who took conservative positions. In the 1920s his ideas became widespread and had a significant influence on the development of Japanese society.

However, the significance of all these theories should not be overestimated: they affected only the views of the elite and practically did not reflect mass consciousness. Most Japanese continued to blindly believe in "divine origin" and indisputable authority authority imperatora. It was not possible to weaken the influence of the military elite on politics - as before, the Privy Council and the Genro Council manipulated the prerogatives of the emperor, making all important decisions in advance.

And yet, in May 1924, for the first time, parliament received the right to create responsible government: The first cabinet was formed on a party basis. This became the Kato government, created on the basis of the Minseito party (this party was closely connected with the manufacturing industry, behind it was the largest concern, Mitsubi-ei). And in 1925, a law on universal suffrage (for men over 30 years of age) was adopted. These were important achievements of democracy.

In Japan, one after another, political parties arose and strengthened their positions, and party cabinets sought to vigorously resist the onslaught of conservative forces. This was not always possible: for example, due to the disunity of the parties, opposition to the law “On the Protection of Public Order” introduced in 1925 was not developed. Punishments, according to him, were provided not only for propaganda of ideas and actions against the imperial system, but also for intentions. Article 1 of this law, for example, provided for from 5 years of imprisonment to a death sentence only for participation in an organization that encroaches on the Constitution and private property.

Between 1924 and 1932, Japan was governed by governments dependent on a majority in the lower house of parliament. Even members of the upper house - the House of Peers - gradually began to experience dependence on political parties. Scientists, lawyers, professors, and not bureaucrats became members of the Privy Council. Democracy needed time to take root in traditions, but there was no time for stable development.

Already in April 1927, the economic situation in Japan deteriorated sharply; The government was headed by another party - the Seiyukai. It was closely connected with the mining industry (the largest concern is Mitsui) and was more aggressive in the field of foreign policy. It was under this government that the Japanese expeditionary force was sent to China in May 1927. In addition, the Seiyukai Party government was unable to successfully resist the onslaught of radical conservatives in the face of worsening economic circumstances.

conclusions

Borrowing elements of European civilization was carried out by Japan youBorochno, taking into account traditions and national specifics.This applied to both the economy and the political system.

Japan made the most of the situation that arose during the Firstworld war, expanding the production and sale of their goods in the desertedmarkets in Asia and effectively turning China into its sphere of influence.

The return of European goods to their old markets caused an economic crisis in Japan. This coincided with changes in internationalsituation, which contributed to the growth of xenophobia in Japan.

After the war, Japan faced a dilemma: develop democracy ortighten traditional structures. Since the early 1920s. the trend towards democracy dominates, but Japan did not have enough time for economically stable development: in 1927 another decline in production and activity beganThe offensive of conservative-radical forces began.

A new stage of political struggle in Japan began in 1890, when elections to the country's first parliament were held within the framework of the 1889 Constitution.

The old political parties Jiyuto and Kaishinto had by that time begun to gain strength again. As a result of the elections on July 1, 1890, these opposition groups together received the largest number of seats (170 out of 300) in the lower house. At the same time, Jiyuto re-established itself as a political party only in March 1891.

At the very first session of the elected parliament in November 1890, a struggle began to reduce government spending, reduce taxes and reduce the cost of the state apparatus. Despite the opposition of the current Prime Minister Yamagata Aritomo, the government agreed to concessions. As a result, parliament adopted the budget, but expenses were reduced by 10%.

By the second session at the end of 1891, Okuma and Itagaki, the leaders of their parties, formed a coalition that was supposed to create a united front to fight the government.

During the second session, the coalition refused to accept a program to build a navy. This clash with the government led to the first early dissolution of parliament in history.

The new election campaign of 1892 took place under the banner of lawlessness - it was accompanied by corruption, bribery and even reprisals, which were secretly sanctioned by the Minister of the Interior. With these measures, the government tried to prevent as many opposition candidates from entering parliament as possible. In Kochi and Saga prefectures (Itagaki and Okuma constituencies), police even opened fire on unarmed crowds, causing heavy casualties.

Despite the government's opposition, the opposition once again won an absolute majority of seats (163) in the lower house. As a result, due to the actions of the government during the election campaign, parliament at the next session in May 1892 passed a vote of no confidence in him. However, the government refused to resign, citing the constitution, according to which it was responsible only to the emperor.

At the same session, a conflict occurred between the upper and lower houses. The lower house cut the government budget, and the upper house restored it. Outraged deputies of the lower house appealed to the emperor with a protest; he referred this issue to the Privy Council, which recognized the priority of the lower house in adopting the budget. However, the government, again citing the constitution, left the previous year's budget in force.

In March 1894, Jiyuto and Kaishinto united most of the small political groups around themselves and eventually again received an absolute majority in parliament - Jiyuto received 120 mandates (against 80 in the previous elections), Kaishinto 50 mandates. Pro-government forces were again defeated.

At the session opened in May 1894, parliament again put forward a vote of no confidence in the government, accusing it of illegally dissolving the parliament of the previous convocation. On June 1, the emperor issued a decree dissolving the House of Representatives. By this time, the atmosphere in parliament and among voters had become extremely tense - dissatisfaction among large sections of the Japanese population with government policies had intensified. An internal political crisis was brewing.

However, the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) calmed the situation in the best possible way. The wave of patriotism that swept the country gave rise to unexpected cooperation and harmony in relations between the ruling circles and parliamentarians. Being on different sides of the barricades, all politicians suddenly felt their unity in a period of national danger. Parliament accepted wartime budgets without any objections and provided other assistance to the cabinet. The experience of working together for the common good opened up the prospect of compromise between oligarchs and party politicians. From the point of view of officials, reaching agreement promised strong support for their programs from legislators, as well as confirmation of the success of the constitutional experiment. For party politicians, this was a chance to gain cabinet positions and increase their influence on the country's politics.

However, after the end of the war, the opposition returned to aggressive policies with renewed vigor. This was due to the fact that commercial and industrial groups supporting the opposition became noticeably stronger as a result of the war with China and began to more strongly claim their right to participate in political leadership. Therefore, the highest state bureaucracy could no longer simply ignore parliament when developing and implementing this or that political course and began to look for ways to interact with it.

Ito Hirobumi was the first Japanese prime minister to approach the idea of ​​a compromise agreement with the most influential parliamentary party.

Faced with severe criticism in parliament, Ito negotiated with the Jiyuto party, which at that time had 108 seats in parliament. In exchange for her support, he brought Itagaki Taisuke into his cabinet as Minister of Internal Affairs.

“The next Prime Minister Matsukata Masayoshi resorted to a similar agreement in 1896. He agreed to support the leadership of the Shimpoto (Progressive Party) party created shortly before, which included members of Kaishinto and about 50 deputies from other opposition groups. The leader of the new party, Okuma Shigenobu received the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, this agreement turned out to be fragile. In the fall of 1897, disagreements arose in the government, and Okuma resigned his post in November. At the next session, Shimpoto voted together with Jiyuto for a vote of no confidence, after which the Matsukata cabinet resigned. "

The next government was again headed by Ito Hirobumi. However, it lasted only a few months (January-July 1898). This happened due to Ito's unsuccessful attempt to reconcile with Jiyuto. As a result, he was unable to pass his bills through parliament and resigned.

The emergence of the practice of parliamentary agreements and the impact that the position of political parties had on the fate of cabinets testified to the growing influence of parliament in determining the political course of the country.

Forced to resign, Ito Hirobumi leaves other important government posts, setting out to create a political party that would become a strong support for the government in parliament. On this basis, his rapprochement with the leaders of opposition parties took place. In June 1898, Jiyuto and Shimpoto united into a new Constitutional Party (Kenseito). Ito managed to obtain the emperor's consent to have a new government formed from members of the newly created party. Not a single member of the Privy Council, including even Yamagata Aritomo, agreed to head the government under the conditions of Kenseito's dominance in the parliament.

As a result of this, on June 30, 1898, the first so-called party cabinet in Japanese history was formed. All members of the cabinet (except for the ministers of war and navy) belonged to the new party.

However, the new government's stay in power was short-lived. Kenseito was formed as a party a week before she came to power and essentially remained the same fragile alliance of Jiyuto and Shimpoto, with all their past differences.

As a result of an incident involving the Minister of Education Ozaki Yukio, the leadership of the former Jiyuto announced the dissolution of Kenseito and the creation of a new party with the same name, which did not include any of the members of Shimpoto. At the same time, the ministers who were members of Jiyuto resigned from the government.

In response to this, Okuma renamed the remnants of the "old" Kenseito (and essentially the old Shimpoto) to Kenseihonto (Genuine Constitutional Party) and tried to form a government only from its members, his actions were not approved by the emperor. As a result, on October 31, 1898, the cabinet fell without having time to hold a single parliamentary session.

At the end of November 1898, the newly confirmed Prime Minister of Yamagata, Aritomo, was able to conclude an agreement with Hoshi Toru, in fact the leader of the “new” Kenseito. For the adoption of the new budget, Yamagata promised to change the electoral legislation in a liberal direction.

In 1900, Kenseito broke off relations with Yamagata and decided to enter into an alliance with Ito Hirobumi, offering him the post of party chairman. However, Ito counted on creating his own party and therefore refused the offer.

The basis of the influence of Ito’s party was close ties with large financial and industrial concerns, primarily Mitsui and Sumitomo. Thus, its creation became a new stage in the strengthening of big capital in Japanese politics.

August 1900 A policy statement of the new party, written by Ito himself, was published, which was named the Society of Political Friends (Rikken Seiyukai or simply Seiyukai). The Seiyukai consisted mainly of representatives of the former Kenseito. In addition, a group of Kenseihonto members led by Ozaki Yukio came to it. As a result, the Seiyukai had a majority in the lower house of parliament (152 seats).

At this stage of the internal political struggle, there is a gradual change in generations of the country's political elite and with it the withering away of old feudal-compatriot relations in political circles; samurai Satsuma and Choshu are being replaced by graduates of the University of Tokyo and Western educational institutions. Commercial and industrial circles are finally establishing themselves in the political administration of Japan.

Further developments lead to a new form of political conflict - confrontation between civil and military authorities. At that time, the Seiyukai did not have a worthy counterweight and maintained a monopoly in parliament. And only in the next era this order was disrupted.

It should be noted that in connection with the scandal that arose around the election campaign of 1892, a crisis broke out in the government. Against this background, a new extra-constitutional body is being created - genro (senior statesmen). It included such influential politicians as Inoue Kaoru, Ito Hirobumi, Kuroda Kiyotaka and Yamagata Aritomo. It was a very small body in terms of the number of people, but it had enormous influence. Almost all members of the genro came from Choshu and Satsuma. All strategically important issues were resolved through the genro. At the same time, there was no constitutional basis for this body; it acted behind the scenes.

During the last stage of the Meiji era from 1901 to 1912. The position of Prime Minister of Japan was occupied by only two politicians: the leader of the Seiyukai party, the successor of Ito Hirobumi - Saionji Kinmochi, and Katsura Taro - a protege of the military “party” led by Yamagata Aritomo. Interestingly, they became prime ministers several times, taking turns, replacing each other. That is, on June 2, 1901, the cabinet of ministers was headed by Katsura Taro, on January 7, 1906, he was replaced by Saionji Kinmochi, on July 14, 1908, the cabinet was again headed by Katsura, on August 30, 1911, he was again replaced by Saionji, and on December 21, 1912 again Katsura's office arrives.

Of course, it is not surprising that Saionji was labeled a “liberal” and Katsura a militarist. However, in essence, the policies of their offices were not fundamentally different from each other. For example, on the issue of the military power of the empire, they pursued a fairly similar policy.

The differences should be looked for behind their backs. More precisely, who supported which sections of society.

Katsura, a native of Choshu, was a professional military man. At one time he rose to the rank of general. And behind him naturally stood the military-bureaucratic group, as well as the owners of defense enterprises, whose profits directly depended on government orders.

Saionji came from the court aristocracy (kuge) and lived for a long time in France. He joined the Seiyukai party, and in 1903 he headed it. The party had close ties with such industrial giants as the Mitsui, Sumitomo, Furukawa, and Yasuda concerns. Therefore, the coming to power of the Saionji cabinet meant the strengthening of the influence of the big bourgeoisie, as well as, in a sense, the strengthening of the influence of parliament.

As already mentioned, spending on the army was impressive under both cabinets. So, during his first term as prime minister, Saionji passes through parliament a new budget, according to which three new divisions are additionally formed in Japan (at that time there were only sixteen of them). In addition, a new program for a large-scale increase in the navy was being developed. And this was after the Russo-Japanese War, which was extremely difficult for the Japanese economy.

In 1908, having engineered the fall of the Saionji cabinet, Katsura returned to power. He holds both the position of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, which allows him to freely draw up the military budget.

The Japanese government continues to spend huge amounts of money on the army. In the financial year 1910-1911 alone, the volume of military expenditures amounted to approximately 34% (!) of the country’s budget.

With all this, both the Saionji cabinet and the Katsura cabinet confirmed the policy of improving the economy after the Russo-Japanese War and repaying the national debt. Naturally, with such expenditures on the army, new financial sources were needed. They usually became new taxes that were levied on the population of the country. Once again the burden of modernization fell on ordinary citizens.

In the 90s of the XIX century. Due to the significant development of industry and the growth of the working class, the labor movement is gaining momentum. It covers all industrial areas of the country, as well as the railway industry.

After the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), which required significant costs, the situation of the workers did not improve at all. The government was more interested in expanding the military budget and supporting companies associated with the army and navy. Nobody simply cared about the problems of the workers except the workers themselves.

The authorities' lack of interest in dealing with the workers only added fuel to the fire. Various socialist ideas spread increasingly among the proletarians.

In the 1880s The Eastern Socialist Party, under pressure from the police, was dissolved without starting full-fledged work. However, we must not forget that the level of industry in those years was low. The party still had too little social support.

In July 1897, the Society for Promoting the Organization of Workers' Trade Unions was created under the leadership of Katayama Sen. The society carried out agitation among the workers. It demanded the introduction of factory legislation.

The work of this organization contributed to the development of trade union activity among workers. In 1897, metalworkers created their own trade union. In 1898, trade unions of machinists and printers were created. Moreover, very often these young organizations participated in strikes and demonstrations.

In 1898, also with the participation of Katayama Sen, the Society for the Study of Socialism was formed, which began research in order to find out what socialism is in its essence.

Nevertheless, the government paid attention to the growth of the labor movement and even began to prepare a law to “settle relations between workers and entrepreneurs,” but in the end, in 1897, a bill was prepared that was only supposed to limit child and female labor, and only in large enterprises. But this law was not adopted either, since the then Prime Minister Yamagata Aritomo did not even allow it to be considered.

A new law on workers came out already in 1900. But it meant cooperation of workers, and not some restrictions for entrepreneurs.

Also in 1900, a law was passed on police measures to maintain public peace. He nullified many of the workers' achievements, in particular, most of the trade unions stopped working and dissolved. After this, the labor movement began to decline, having only just begun to develop.

However, this did not prevent members of the Society for the Study of Socialism from organizing the Japanese Social Democratic Party (Nihonshakaiminshuto) on May 20, 1901. It was attended by Kotoku Denjiro and Katoyama Sen. True, this party was closed by the police on the same day that it was opened.

“The platform of the new Social Democratic Party set out the following 8 principles: 1) all people are brothers, regardless of race and political differences; 2) in order to establish universal peace, it is necessary first of all to completely destroy all weapons; 3) the final elimination of class society; 4) socialization of land and capital necessary as means of production; 5) socialization of communications and transport: railways, ships and bridges; 6) equal distribution of wealth; 7) political equality, equal political rights for the entire population; 8) all expenses for education for universal equal education of the people must be borne by the state."

Judging by this document, it no longer seems surprising how quickly the authorities banned the party. Imperialism was developing in the country, and militarization was in full swing. Ideas about general disarmament and socialization of property must have seemed incredibly radical to the police.

Although Katayama Sen himself wrote that there was no radicalism in their organization, especially since the party opposed violence and revolution as a means of achieving power. The party manifesto emphasized: “Parliament is the arena of our activities in the future; the day our party achieves a majority in parliament, the time will come when we will realize our plans.”

True, he also wrote (these are his later thoughts) that the Social Democratic Party was inherently petty-bourgeois and did not stand on the principles of Marxism.

After the dissolution of the party, confusion began in the ranks of the socialists. The position of Christian socialism is strengthening. Due to the relative moderation of the Social Democrats, anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are becoming widespread due to their more radical methods of struggle.

However, the core of the party remains, which, despite the ban, continues to conduct agitation and propaganda activities. The Socialist Association is created. The publication of the newspaper "Workers' World" continues (in 1902 it was renamed "Socialism"), which was the mouthpiece of the socialist movement and also played an educational role.

At this time, Japan was in a state of preparation for the Russian-Japanese War (1904-1905), and anti-Russian propaganda was coming from everywhere in the country. Newspapers published articles calling for people to become active on the continent and start a war with Russia. In contrast, Katayama Sen and Kotoku Denjiro and their associates toured the country, giving lectures and performances on anti-war issues.

“Everywhere we went, we managed to create departments of the Socialist Association. The core of our anti-war propaganda was the thesis that this would be a capitalist war, which would inevitably bring further suffering and poverty to the workers, as was the case during the Sino-Japanese War.”

In November 1903, the "Common People's Society" (Heimingxia) was formed. This society began publishing the newspaper Heiminshimbun, which became a mouthpiece for anti-war propaganda. Even during the war years the newspaper continued to be published. Its circulation reached 8 thousand copies, this is a very serious indicator, so we can say that this topic was of interest to many people.

After the Russo-Japanese War, there was a temporary revitalization of the labor movement. Against this background, a split is brewing among socialists into supporters of radical methods of struggle and moderates.

In 1906, the Japanese Socialist Party (Nihonshakaito) was created. In order not to be banned again, a clause “on the struggle for socialism within the framework of the law” is included in the party program.

However, the split among socialists is growing. Kotoku Denjiro now leads the anarcho-syndicalist wing. Largely thanks to him, at the second party congress the item “on the struggle for socialism within the framework of the law” was excluded from the program. A few days after this, the party was again banned by the authorities.

After this, the final split of the socialists occurs. Radical supporters of Kotoku Denjiro in 1907 in Osaka begin to print the newspaper "Osaka Heiminshimbun". The moderates, together with Katayama Sen, founded their newspaper "Shakaishimbun" next year.

In 1910, a trial of anarchists took place. Kotoku and his supporters were subjected to brutal repression, after which the leader and several of his associates were sentenced to death, and the rest were sent to hard labor.

In 1912, Katayama was also convicted, but he was soon released again. After some time, he left Japan and went to the USA.

Thus, the labor movement in Japan during the Meiji era never found its leaders and ideologists. The socialist organizations consisted mainly of the intelligentsia and the petty bourgeoisie. As soon as they began to be active, trying to enlist the support of the workers and lead their movements, the government used harsh repressive measures that threw the socialists back, not allowing them to gain a foothold on what they had achieved. Therefore, after the last powerful rise of the labor movement in the Meiji era after the Russo-Japanese War, by 1908 it was seriously weakening.

So, in the second half of the Meiji era, Japan no longer carries out such radical reforms as in the first half, limiting itself to adjustments and development of old transformations. Gradually, the country integrates into itself everything that was once borrowed from the outside world. Institutions such as the constitution, parliament, cabinet of ministers already in the 90s. XIX century become an integral part of Japanese reality, which it would seem have been here for a long time.

At this stage, power still remains in the hands of a small group of oligarchs. However, this structure is gradually becoming obsolete, giving way to party cabinets and parliamentary parties.

It must be said that the second half of the Meiji era marks the completion of the formation of the Japanese nation. Consolidation around the monarch has done its job; now every resident of the Japanese islands, first of all, considers himself a subject of the emperor - a Japanese. The two major wars that Japan fought showed that even irreconcilable political enemies, in the event of danger threatening the state, are ready to forget about their interests for the good of the homeland and the glory of the imperial house.

However, having embarked on the path of imperialist wars and colonial policies, socio-economic problems typical of such states are developing in Japan, which the Meiji successors will have to solve.

Internal political development of Japan during the Meiji era (1868-1912)

Introduction

political liberal japan

Relevance of the research topic. Nowadays, Japan is an economically developed, modern state with powerful industry and high technology. It is one of the leading states on the world stage. The whole world imports from this country a huge amount of all kinds of equipment, electronics and other material goods. At the same time, works of Japanese culture and science are exported.

Naturally, it is necessary to understand that this state of affairs did not always exist. Japan became an economically developed state relatively recently - at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. But it should be noted that compared to other states, it achieved similar successes in a surprisingly short time. Moreover, Japan remained for a long time the only such state in Asia at a time when all other countries in this region were enslaved. Why?

Japan, or as it is also called “The Land of the Rising Sun,” is one of the oldest states in East Asia. For most of its existence, this state was on the periphery of major world civilizations, more precisely one civilization - Chinese; there was practically no connection with others. Only in modern times did this situation change.

Due to its geographical location, Japan has always lived in natural isolation. The only attempt to conquer the Japanese islands was made by the Mongols, but it also ended in failure. Borrowing various aspects of life from China, the Japanese population was focused more on internal development than on the outside world.

The gradual loss of real political power by the emperors, the increasing frequency of internecine wars, the strengthening of the military class - all this led to the establishment of military power in Japan, led by the shoguns, who became the real masters of the country. During this period, the emperor ceases to be a ruler and becomes a sacred symbol without real power.

In the 17th century In the place of shogun, Tokugawa Ieyasu is established, who began a new era - Edo. During this era, peace was established in Japan for more than two hundred years. At the same time, the country was closed to foreigners from Europe, which affected the overall level of development of the state.

The prolonged peaceful existence of Japan contributed to the development of commodity-money relations and internal trade. This in turn created contradictions between the feudal system and the emerging bourgeoisie. This issue became especially acute in the 19th century.

At the same time, Asia is gradually becoming an arena of confrontation between world powers for colonial domination. Japan was not of primary interest to them, but sooner or later its turn had to come.

This began in 1853, when a US Navy squadron led by Commodore M. Perry forced the Japanese government to open the country and conclude an unequal treaty. Following the United States, similar agreements were concluded with other powers. The first steps in the enslavement of Japan had been taken.

However, despite everything, the reverse process is beginning in Japan. Unable to cope with the internal crisis and external danger, the Tokugawa government is overthrown, taking the Edo era with it into history. It is being replaced by a new era - the era of Renewal - the Meiji era. The Meiji government that replaced Tokugawa now, on behalf of the emperor, begins the process of creating a new powerful Japan capable of defending its independence in the new world.

The topic being studied is relevant, since the Meiji era is the starting point of the development of modern Japan. Indeed, what the Land of the Rising Sun now represents in all spheres of activity was founded or transformed from the old during the reign of Emperor Mutsuhito, the first emperor-ruler of Japan in many centuries.

The object of study is Japan during the Meiji era.

The subject of the study is the political processes and transformations in Japan that took place in the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

The chronological scope of the work is the Meiji era - 1868 -1912. The lower limit of the study is 1868 - the restoration of the power of the emperor in Japan and the creation of a new bourgeois government. The upper limit is 1912 - the death of Emperor Mutsuhito and the end of the Meiji era. However, the author reserves the right to go beyond the allocated framework and conduct a brief excursion into history if it is necessary to clarify facts important for the study.

The geographical scope of the work is limited to the Japanese islands. In this work, the author examines the circumstances and features of the internal political state of the Japanese state, minimizing its foreign policy. Consequently, the geographical framework will be based on the core of Japan - its ancestral island territories.

Degree of scientific development. Some of the first generalizing historical works on Japan in general and on the Meiji era, in particular, began to appear in Russian historical science of the pre-revolutionary period at the beginning of the 20th century, due to the growing interest in the Land of the Rising Sun due to the events of the Russian-Japanese War of 1904- 1905 Thus, Nikolaev A.A., in his work “Essays on the History of the Japanese People,” was one of the first to describe various spheres of life of Japanese society from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century and explored the political life of Japan during the period under study.

The political structure of Japan was outlined in the work of D. Pozdneev “Japan. Geographical and statistical sketch.” The study shows the administrative structure, political organizations and legal sphere of Japanese society during the modern period.

The Meiji era is described in the work of Vandenberg H. “Historical Development of Japan. From the Founding of the State to the Battle of Tsushima,” in which the author examines the social and political life of Japan.

In 1905, the work of Baron Siebold A. “The Age of Great Reforms in Japan” was translated into Russian, in which the author was one of the first to analyze the Meiji transformations.

Soviet historiography approaches the study of the political situation in Japan from a Marxist-Leninist position and brings the class struggle in society to the fore.

Researcher Fainberg E.Ya. in his work “The Internal and International Situation of Japan in the Middle of the 19th Century” analyzes the events of the Bakumatsu period preceding the Meiji period, thereby clarifying the reasons for the formation of a new political situation in Japan at the beginning of the Meiji era.

One of the first generalizing works on the new Japanese history is the work published under the editorship of A.L. Galperin, “Essays on the new history of Japan (1640-1917).” It analyzes the Japanese Revolution of 1868 and the country's political development during the Meiji era.

The development of the labor movement and the ideas of socialism in Japan is shown in the work of I. I. Kovalenko “Essays on the history of the communist movement in Japan.”

Researcher Leshchenko N.F. in his work “The Meiji Revolution in the Works of Japanese Marxist Historians” he outlined the ideas of a number of Japanese historians on the events of Meiji Isin, representing the Marxist historiographic school.

Among the studies of Russian authors, one should mention the work of D.P. Bugaev. "Japanese publicists of the late 19th century", which analyzes the political life of Japanese society, its reaction to the transformations taking place in the country during the Meiji era.

In the work of Mikhailova Yu.D. “Socio-political thought of Japan (60-80s of the 19th century)” presents the main ideas of Japanese intellectuals of this period on the goals, methods and implementation of reforms of the late 19th century. in the country.

The work of V.V. Kuchma is devoted to the development of the legal system of Japan in modern times. "State and law of modern times (XVIII-XIX centuries)" and a study edited by O.A. Zhidkov. and Krasheninnikova N.A. "History of the state and the law of foreign countries."

Researcher Eremin V.N. belongs to one of the newest works on the history of the development of state and law in Japan - “History of the Legal System of Japan”. In it, the author analyzes the development of Japanese justice and the influence of the Chinese and European legal systems on it.

Eliseev D.'s book "History of Japan. Between China and the Pacific Ocean" analyzes the political development of the country in the context of external influence on the Japanese state.

Kovalchuk M.K. in his publication "Government Crisis of 1873: Domestic and Foreign Policy Causes" analyzes the first major crisis in the Meiji government, the consequences of which had a huge impact on the further development of Japan.

An important study on the history of the Meiji period is “History of Japan,” edited by Zhukov, which outlines important aspects of the political development of Japan in the last third of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

The events of the Meiji era, including the political features of the era, are discussed in the work of Datsishen V. “New History of Japan”.

Many new facts on the history of Japan during the period under study are presented by V.V. Sovasteev. in the work “Essays on the History of Japan. From Tokugawa Ieyasu to Hashimoto Ryutaro”, as well as in his articles “Hirobumi Ito in the interior of Japanese history” and “Liberalism in Japan”. The author analyzes the activities of a number of famous personalities of this period who influenced the development of the country.

E. Deinorov in the book “History of Japan” analyzes, first of all, the reforms of the first half of the Meiji era, and also gives a general picture of the period as a whole.

In the context of modernity, the Meiji era is considered in the collective work “Japan’s experience of modernization,” published under the editorship of E.V. Molodyakov. The work analyzes the experience of modernization of the country at the end of the 19th century. - beginning of the 20th century

Fundamental works on the Meiji era are the works of A.N. Meshcheryakov. “The Japanese Emperor and the Russian Tsar” and “Emperor Meiji and His Japan”, in which the author analyzes the Meiji era through the connection of traditions, national understanding of the world and other factors that influenced the course of events in Japan during the period under study.

Foreign historiography of the problem. In Japanese historical science, one should name the famous scientist Hani Goro, who, being a representative of the Marxist historical school, in his studies “The History of the Japanese People” and “The Japanese Empire. The History of the Country of the Samurai”, conducted a deep economic analysis and outlined a new vision of the history of Japan in the context of formation theory.

Toyama Shigeki, the author of the book “Meiji Ishin (The Collapse of Feudalism in Japan),” also writes from a Marxist position. His work analyzes the process of transition of Japanese society from feudalism to capitalism.

The Japanese historical-Marxist school is also represented by Hattori Korefus. His work "Essays on the History of the Labor Movement in Japan" shows the development of the working class and the socialist movement in Japan.

From the General Outline of the Sciences of Law, prepared under the editorship of Yamamoto Keiichi, we learn about the development of the Japanese legal system during the Meiji era.

Among the foreign authors, one should introduce the American researcher Herbert Norman, the author of the works “The Emergence of the Modern State in Japan. The Soldier and the Peasant in Japan” and “The Formation of Capitalist Japan. Economic and Political Problems of the Meiji Period,” which focuses on the economic problems of Japanese society in the study of political life of the country. Scientist J. McClain in his book “Japan. From the Tokugawa Shogunate to the 21st Century” (M., 2011) analyzes the contradictions and reforms of the Meiji period and their consequences. The work of Thames R. “Japan: the history of the country” (St. Petersburg, 2009) talks about some specific features of the transformations in modern Japan.

An analysis of the historiography of the problem allows us to conclude that there are practically no general studies on the internal political development of Japan during the Meiji era.

The purpose of the work is to show the internal political development of Japan during the Meiji era.

Objectives of the final qualifying work:

Identify the main causes and consequences of reforms;

Identify the challenges facing the Japanese government during the Meiji era;

Identify the emergence of new and transformation of old political institutions;

Trace the development of the main political forces in the country.

Methodological basis of the study. The basis of the research methodology is the principles of historicism, objectivity and consistency.

The principle of historicism makes it possible to consider events in all their conditioned historical relationships.

The principle of objectivity is based on the fact that historical facts and sources have objective content and with the help of their analysis it is possible to reconstruct the picture of the past.

The principle of systematicity allows us to consider factors in their totality and development, to study the structure and functions of the subject of study, its various connections that form a certain integrity.

The following methods were used in the work:

the historical-genetic method was used to identify the causes and results of the reforms of the Meiji era, as well as to determine the roles of specific individuals in the process of their implementation.

The comparative historical method made it possible to identify the essence of political reforms in Japan during the Meiji period.

Methodological description was used to reconstruct historical facts for the purpose of their subsequent analysis.

The source base for the work was the collection “The Japanese about Japan”, ed. DI. Sreideira, which presents a translation of the texts of the decrees and sayings of Emperor Meiji related to important political reforms.

T. Bogdanovich's work "Essays on the Past and Present of Japan" has an appendix with the Constitution of Japan of 1889, which is a valuable historical document of the era.

The work of the famous Japanese communist Katayama Sen “On the issue of the origin and development of Marxism in Japan” in which the author talks about the path that he, and with him, the other main figures of Japanese socialism, took, including the formation and development of these ideas during the Meiji period.

The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, as well as a list of used sources and literature.

1. The initial period of the Meiji era (1868-1870s): political aspect

The political situation in Japan, which arose after the restoration of the monarchy in 1868, has specific features. Established as a result of the revolution of 1867-1868. The Meiji government was not yet firmly established in the country; it did not have a reliable basis either among the common people or among the samurai, but during the war with the Tokugawa shogunate, people placed high hopes on the emperor and his supporters in the struggle for the independence and prosperity of Japan. Although the country's population continued to follow the laws and traditions of the Tokugawa era, they expected from the new government the reforms necessary to return the country to independence, which was called into question after the shogun's government concluded unequal treaties with the powers of Europe and the United States.

A split is brewing within the government itself. It must be said that the very composition of the Meiji government was determined by factors that arose long before the revolution. To do this, let’s take a short excursion into history.

Even at the dawn of the previous era, Edo-Japan, torn apart by internal wars of feudal principalities and led by various houses (clans) led by daimyos (feudal princes), was united under the single hand of one of these daimyos, Tokugawa Ieyasu. As a result of the war, which Ieyasu won, his allies received the highest position in the country's socio-political system; they began to be called fudai-daimyo - these were princes loyal to the shogun, from among whom the government of the state - bakufu - was formed. At the same time, the daimyo who participated in the war on the side of the Tokugawa opponents were deprived of many privileges and lands and began to be called tozama-daimyo. The Tozama were not part of the Japanese government structure. Instead, despite the laws prohibiting samurai from engaging in commerce, they secretly began to engage in trade.

Bearing a grudge against the Tokugawa shogunate, the tazama daimyo were only waiting for the moment for revenge. This moment appeared more than two hundred and fifty years after these events. By that time, the Tozama principalities, located mainly in the southwest of Japan, were the most economically developed territories of the country thanks to extensive trade relations.

Having supported the movements to overthrow the shogun and restore the power of the emperor, the leaders of the southwestern principalities led the fight against the Tokugawa house, which ended in their complete victory. Thus a revolution was carried out, which became known as Meiji Ishin.

During the struggle, both sides essentially shared the same beliefs. Both supporters of the shogun and supporters of the restoration set the main goal of strengthening the country (primarily the army) to counter the penetration of Western powers into Japan. In fact, the “revolution” itself took place between representatives of the feudal elite of society, primarily the samurai. And although the supporters of the restoration initially adhered to the slogan “Expel the barbarians,” gradually their attitude towards foreigners changed and moved to an understanding of the need to learn from the West in order to be able to resist it.

It is also important to note that at the very beginning of the new era, the Japanese did not represent a single nation and were actually subordinate to their local rulers. In the minds of the population of various principalities, for a long time there remained a commitment to associate themselves with a specific princely house or province, rather than with some abstract “Japan”. Actually, the very concept of “Japan” (Nippon) had an external rather than an internal character. Being isolated for a long time, the country was focused on developing internal rather than external relations, which contributed not to the consolidation of the people, but to greater regionalism. As a result, the main factors maintaining the unity of the state were the authority of the bakufu and the loyalty of the daimyo to the ruling shogunal house.

As we understand, after the revolution this system actually began to collapse. Therefore, one of the main goals of the new leadership was to develop “spiritual bonds” capable of uniting the population of the islands around a single central government.

The main role of such a unifying factor was assigned to the person of the emperor. He was to become the core around which all classes from all provinces were to rally and form a single Japanese nation.

It must be said that the figure of the emperor has always had a universal sacred meaning for the Japanese. It was not without reason that the reformers placed emphasis in this direction, because according to legend, the emperor was the “son of heaven” - God on Earth, possessing divine power, which, with a kind of grace, spread throughout the country, to all his subjects.

The overthrow of the shogunate as a result of the Meiji Ishin events and the de jure transfer of full power to the emperor were accompanied by slogans about restoring historical justice and returning to the true path of governance, i.e. to the time of the 8th-12th centuries, when the monarch really ruled the country.

The government took these slogans into service and began to introduce into society the idea of ​​​​the unity of all the emperor's subjects - all Japanese. To ensure the connection of times, the new administrative apparatus was formed in the image of the old bodies that existed under the emperors of the past.

So, in 1968, the main governing body was created (formally “recreated”) - the Chamber of the Great State Council (Dadjokan). However, while maintaining the old name, a new idea of ​​separation of powers is introduced into it. Naturally, it didn’t come out of nowhere.

Public meetings will be organized and administrative matters will be decided at a general meeting.

Rulers and ruled alike must devote themselves to the welfare of the people.

All military or civil ranks have [the right] to encourage personal enterprise in all classes and encourage the manifestation of lively activity.

The hitherto prevailing bad customs will be softened.

Useful information will be borrowed from the outside world, and in this way the foundations of the empire will be strengthened.

This oath becomes the official doctrine of the entire domestic policy of the country. Based on the ideas proclaimed in it, the main political institutions will be formed, especially in the first half of the Meiji period.

Dajokan is established instead of the Sanshoku system (three official ranks) created on the Chinese model on January 17, 1868. She carried out the work of the government until the decree of May 16, 1868. Then, Dajokan was formed according to a new model.

The new body included an advisory council and specialized departments. Initially, the heads of the institutions of the State Council were always princes of the blood, representatives of the kuge (court aristocracy), or samurai of the highest ranks. Lower positions could be occupied by less titled samurai. Dajokan was led by the Chief Minister of State, who had two deputies, as well as advisers who led the departments.

The Advisory Council included two chambers: the upper (which concentrated all real political power in its hands) and the lower (which was an advisory body that included representatives from principalities, cities, etc.).

Interestingly, the lower house was supposed to freely discuss draft laws. “Its members were appointed by the government for an unlimited period, although Article 4 of the decree stated that “the purpose of creating a deliberative institution is an open discussion and establishment of the opinion of the majority.” Only two meetings of this body took place, but its historical significance lay in the fact that it was the prototype of the lower house of the future parliament." This is believed to be due to American influence. This is not surprising, considering that it was with the United States that the first significant ties were established, and initially it was the United States that was considered by the Japanese as a role model.

In 1871, another reorganization of the Japanese government took place. The new management structure was developed under the leadership of Kido Takayoshi. According to it, Dajokan was divided into three chambers: central (Shoin), left (Sain) and right (Uin). The Central Chamber was formally directly subordinate to the emperor. However, in reality it turned out that Meiji was simply present at its meetings. In fact, he spent all the meetings without saying a word.

The central chamber included the positions of chief minister, minister of the right, minister of the left, as well as advisers (sanghi). By the way, all these positions were also at the court of the emperors of the 8th century.

The activities of the left chamber included a legislative function. It also included ministers and their deputies from the right chamber.

The right chamber was engaged in administrative leadership, that is, it essentially played the role of the executive branch. It included nine ministries: finance, justice, education, defense, foreign affairs, industry, the imperial court, heavenly and earthly deities, and the development of Hokkaido.

This government structure existed until 1875, when on April 14, the “Highest Decree on the Transformation of Internal Administration” was issued, which read: “Having ascended to the Throne and becoming the head of administration, We took a solemn oath before Heaven to take care of the welfare of our homeland. However, upon reflection, we were convinced , that since We assumed power not such a long period has passed, and that in terms of the internal pacification of Our state there are by no means a few matters that need to be set in motion or re-arranged. As a result, We, now expanding the meaning of Our oath, hereby establish Genroin, increasing This is the source of legislation, and we establish Taixinyin, thereby strengthening the power of thorough legal proceedings; likewise, We convene local officials, ordering them to report the opinion of the people, outline measures for the people's welfare, and gradually introduce well-ordered political institutions for our country and population, for We desire that each and every one benefited from their benefits.

Therefore, refrain from adhering to old customs; Beware also of paying insufficient attention to the cause of progress or being slow in action. Therefore, pay due attention to Our words."

The decree implied the implementation (at least formally) of the idea of ​​separation of powers contained in the imperial “Oath in Five Articles.”

As new changes in government were implemented, Dajokan continued to serve as the government of the country, with its central chamber moving forward and the chief minister being declared an assistant to the emperor. However, the right and left chambers were abolished. In their place, in accordance with the decree, the Senate (Genroin), the judicial chamber (Taisinin) and the assembly of prefectural governors were created.

The Assembly of Governors was created as another prototype of the future parliament; it was supposed to reflect and express the ideas and sentiments of provincial Japan (at least its political elite). This is what the emperor said on May 20, 1875 on the occasion of the upcoming opening of the Assembly of Provincial Authorities:

“In accordance with the oath We took upon Our accession to the Imperial Throne, We now convene for a conference the representatives of Our subjects. We desire that they carefully discuss and settle on such new measures as may be considered necessary for the welfare of the people, and thus, made it easier for Us to manage Our internal affairs, and so that the Government and the people were unanimous, and the voice of the latter could thus reach Us.

We hope that all Our subjects will have a due consciousness of their duties towards the state, and that the officials of the cities and provinces will maturely discuss and carefully weigh the projects that can be presented to increase the welfare of Our Empire."

Genroin (House of Elders) was an advisory body under the central chamber for working with bills. His powers were initially quite vague and did not have clear boundaries. Later, the competence of the Senate was determined by simply expressing opinions regarding the introduction of new and repeal of old laws, which were proposed by Dajokan. At the same time, Genroin had the right to propose his ideas in the legislative sphere to the emperor.

The House of Elders was formed from representatives of the aristocracy, the current political elite, people who made a significant contribution to the progress of the country, as well as the most “enlightened” and “knowledgeable” specialists. Moreover, all the people were appointed there by decree of the emperor himself. Therefore, the Senate can be considered a prototype of the future upper house of parliament, which was formed according to similar principles.

The Supreme Court of Justice was also created under the central chamber. In theory, she was supposed to monitor the implementation of the law. However, in reality it was only the final authority in resolving legal cases.

The French judicial system was taken as a model, but there were also local specific features. One way or another, this was a significant step in the development of the Japanese institution of law.

After the transformation of 1875, there were no significant changes in the government structures of Japan for ten years. For ten years, Japan was essentially governed by a transitional government.

The authorities formed in 1875 were an intermediate link between traditional Japan and modernized Japan. Their main goals were to resolve the country's primary problems and lay the foundations for a deeper modernization of society and the economy in the future.

In addition, during this period, based on long-term and in-depth studies of Western countries carried out by the country's leadership, the general path of development was chosen, along which Japan will go further.

One of the most important issues facing the country in the early Meiji years was that of territorial division and unity of the country.

As mentioned above, in the early years of the Meiji reign, Japan consisted of feudal vassal principalities (han). At that time, the emperor had full possession of only the lands confiscated from the house of Tokugawa and his allies during the Bakumatsu years. Before this, only the Gosho Palace in Kyoto was in the personal possession of the emperor.

The principalities were formally subordinate to the emperor, but at the same time continued to have their own armed units. The government's power there was only nominal.

For the full-scale modernization of the country, the resources of all of Japan were needed. Not surprisingly, the old administrative system did not meet the needs of the new government to achieve its goals. It had to be deeply reformed in order to put it in the right direction.

The first movement in this direction, oddly enough, was made by the daimyo themselves, more precisely, the daimyo of the four southwestern principalities of Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa and Hizen, who played a decisive role in the war with the shogun. On January 20, 1869, they submitted their petition to the emperor, which, in particular, said the following: “The principles of the relationship of subjects to the Emperor and the duties of superiors and inferiors are eternal and unchangeable... All land is the domain of the Emperor, and the people working on it - the people of the Emperor and no one can use them for personal purposes... Therefore, we loyally renounce all our possessions with the prayer that all laws would be issued at the direction of the Emperor, so that a single government would prevail throughout the entire empire."

The text of the petition seems to suggest the restoration of “justice”, because in Japan in the 8th century. all lands were under the authority of the emperor. During the years of the shoguns, this principle was violated, which is why “loyal subjects” return to the sovereign what should rightfully belong to him.

Following the southwestern principalities, such petitions began to arrive from others. As a result, the emperor received appeals from 262 daimyo and only 12 did not do so.

The petitioners were given "permission" in their petition. The rest did it forcibly. Thus, the power of the new government was greatly strengthened throughout the country.

At this stage, daimyo most often remained in power in their domains, but now they were not the hereditary masters of this land, but only governors. Their political weight was now much lower than before.

Local paramilitaries were now either integrated into the newly emerging Japanese military or disbanded.

The next stage of administrative reform was the widespread introduction of prefectures as the main administrative-territorial units. On August 29, 1871, by decree of the emperor, the principalities were abolished. Prefectures, previously created on the former lands of the bakufu, were now introduced throughout Japan to replace the principalities.

As a result, more than 300 prefectures were initially created. Then their number was reduced to 72, at the same time the cities of Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka were equal in status to prefectures. The borders usually corresponded to the boundaries of the principalities, although small principalities were united into one prefecture. The final number was established in 1888, now there were only 47 prefectures.

From now on, the entire country was officially and in fact in the power of the young emperor and his government, which could continue its reforms relying on the people of all of Japan and using all its forces.

To carry out any significant reforms, funds were naturally needed, and for such reforms as the Meiji government conceived, huge financial injections were needed. For a feudal state, whose industry was only in its infancy, commodity-money capital did not yet represent a significant economic force, and the source of internal income, in fact, was only agriculture.

There was another way to attract investment from abroad, take loans from developed countries. However, the government flatly refused to take loans from foreigners and allow them to access the country's internal resources. The Japanese political elite naturally had reasons not to trust Western investors, who had turned the entire world into their colonial and semi-colonial raw material appendage. Moreover, the main goal of the reforms was to achieve the complete independence of Japan. Therefore, throughout the first half of the Meiji period, the lion's share of the country's budget came primarily from the countryside. Subsequently, revenues from light industry associated with agriculture were added to it, but they were still incomparably small.

In this regard, the government paid special attention to agricultural policy. To overcome feudal remnants and increase the efficiency of this industry in 1871-1873. agrarian reform took place. The purpose of this reform was to rebuild the feudal village on a capitalist basis. For this purpose, various feudal duties and taxes were abolished.

In February 1872, a law on freedom of land transactions was issued. According to this law, everyone who owned land became its full owners, without any conditions. Those who were recognized as the owner of the land were issued a document (Tiken) confirming the right to the land. Anyone who could prove that they actually owned this land could receive it. In addition to peasants, samurai who were engaged in agriculture, as well as the trading and usurious bourgeoisie also received such a document.

In 1873, instead of the old taxes, a single land tax was introduced. From then on, everyone who had a tiken was required to pay directly to the central government. The tax was 3% of the market value of the land owned by the owner. In addition, another 1% was levied in favor of the local budget. The tax itself now had to be paid in cash.

The land tax was established on the basis of the following three principles: 1) if previously the criterion for levying the tax was the harvest, now the cost of the land should become such a criterion; 2) the tax rate was set at 3% of the value of the land (in 1876 this rate was briefly reduced to 2.5%), and, unlike the previous taxation procedure, the size of the harvest was not taken into account; 3) the tax had to be paid in money, and not in kind, as was the case before. The three percent tax was actually lower than the previous feudal tax, except for the local tax of one percent. However, in this case the situation was much more complicated: this tax differed from the feudal tax both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Based not on the size of the harvest, but on the value of the land, the government provided itself with a stable income, regardless of the natural and climatic conditions affecting the income of farmers. This stability was necessary for reformers to plan reforms and, accordingly, spend on them. At the same time, the monetary form of payment was largely related to the need to pay cash stipends to former feudal lords who were left without their former income.

The agrarian reform hit small owners, who were the majority, the hardest. Thus, immediately after the harvest, land-poor peasants had to sell rice regardless of the price on the market, while medium and large landowners could wait until a better time to do this.

Often peasants with little land turned to moneylenders and large landowners for help, and often this led to the loss of their right to land - they lost their allotment or had already rented a plot for themselves.

During the reform, the border between private and state lands was defined. Forests, meadows, streams, pastures, which were previously under the jurisdiction of the peasant community, after the transformations turned out to be essentially no one's, which officials took advantage of and declared them the property of the emperor. Thus, the government expanded the state land fund to include territories for which it was very difficult or unprofitable for poor peasants to prove ownership. At the same time, these lands often subsequently went into the hands of large landowners who were able to pay for them.

Thus, the reform fulfilled two more tasks: 1) dispossession of poor peasants, who in the future would join the emerging class of workers; 2) the development of large land holdings, the number of which increased markedly during this period. Both of these tasks were in line with the fulfillment of the main economic goal - the transition to capitalism.

The introduction of borrowings from abroad in the country in economics, politics and other areas could not but require the creation of a new legal foundation. The old laws of the Tokugawa times lost their authority and ceased to correspond to the new order of things. In addition, the lack of a modern and effective legal system gave rise to other powers demanding extraterritoriality from Japan in administering justice to foreign subjects. Such actions called into question the sovereignty of the state, and foreigners and Japanese found themselves in an unequal position.

In the early Meiji years, at the very initial stage, there were attempts to inherit the “Qing Laws” and other phenomena of Chinese law. However, this did not last long, by the beginning of the 70s. XIX century translations of European legal codes and the introduction of their ideas into society begin. This was also due to the desire to quickly renegotiate the unequal treaties with the Western powers.

In 1871, the Ministry of Justice (shihosho) was formed. His responsibility included legal proceedings and search. The first person to head the new body was Eto Shinpei. Under his leadership, the idea of ​​centralizing the judicial system began to be developed.

The first step that marked the beginning of the reorganization of the judicial system was the creation of a court in Tokyo in December 1871. Subsequently, “high courts” (jotosaibansho), which were located in Nagasaki, Osaka and Fukuoka, and prefectural courts were created.

The Ministry of Justice in 1872 determined that in the event of local officials violating the rights of the population, victims have the right to go to court. Thus, the government proved the extension of its jurisdiction over the entire country. The elimination of abuses by local officials through uniform legislation also contributed to the centralization of the state.

On August 1872, a document was adopted on the organization of the justice system - “Regulations on the official duties of justice officials.” This was in fact the first law on courts in Japan. It traces the norms of Dutch and French law.

The new “Regulations” proposed the creation of five types of courts: an emergency court of the Ministry of Justice, which was supposed to consider cases of national importance, as well as crimes committed by judges; mobile courts for hard-to-reach areas of the country (none were formed); prefectural courts; district courts. In addition, the positions of prosecutor and lawyer were introduced.

Finally, the highest judicial body, the Supreme Court of Justice (Taishinying), was created in April 1875.

The institutions of private law at this stage were still poorly developed. They were formed in line with the same economic policy of the government.

In fact, the new legal system was only being established during this period. Most often these were general provisions on which the government relied to achieve its goals. They were more declarative than concrete. However, this formed the basis for broader changes in the future.

Military reform, to some extent, can be called the locomotive of Japanese progress at that time, because it was in the army that the first significant changes for Japan began. The army has always been associated with the independence of the country, and if independence was the cornerstone of all transformations, the army turned out to be the first link in the chain of these transformations.

The slogan of this time - “A rich country - a strong army” speaks for itself. Of course, it cannot be said that all reforms were carried out only to satisfy the needs of the armed forces, especially at the initial stage of the Meiji era, but in later periods the role of the army in politics and economics increases as never before.

At the beginning of the military reform, the ruling circles had completely opposite ideas. Part of the government led by Kido Takayoshii and Omura Masujiro (then his point of view was defended by Yamagata Aritomo) advocated the creation of an army based on universal conscription of recruits, the other part, led by Saigo Takamori and Okubo Toshimichi, defended the idea of ​​forming an army exclusively from samurai, not without reason fearing that this class would lose its influence.

During the discussion of this issue, to begin with, a compromise option was created - the imperial guard. It was formed by people from the principalities of Satsuma, Choshu and Tosa in 1871. As often happens, the guard became the model on the basis of which the rest of the army was then formed.

It is interesting that until 1871, only a small part of the country's armed forces was still in the hands of the government. Only with the abolition of the principalities do all kinds of formations of princes begin accelerated integration into a single army, under a single command.

On February 1872, the military department was liquidated, and in its place the Ministry of the Army and the Ministry of the Navy arose. This is how a new, more developed command system is formed.

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​a conscript army was gaining more and more weight. Its opponents proposed creating a contract volunteer army, like in the USA and Great Britain. However, Yamagata Aritomo, rejecting this option, quite rightly argued that the state did not have enough funds to maintain a contract army. In addition, since only samurai will probably join it, military affairs will remain in the hands of the samurai class.

Against this background, on November 28, 1872, the law on military service was introduced, and from January 9, 1873, the army and navy began to be formed on a conscription basis.

By law, the country was divided into six military districts. The entire male population who had reached the age of twenty was subject to conscription for three years. However, the French law “On Military Service” was taken as a model, so it contained a lot of nuances under which it was possible to avoid the army or even buy off from it.

Due to imperfections, this law was revised several times: in 1875, 1879, 1883, 1889. During these revisions, the army was restructured in the Prussian manner, which contributed to the tightening of conscription procedures.

Due to the unevenness of the conscription system, which was contained in the original version of the law, discontent arose in the country, which was shared not only by the samurai, but also by the common people. This was further aggravated by the fact that in the minds of people of non-samurai origin the traditional idea of ​​war remained as an exclusively samurai occupation and not affecting other classes. Many years passed until these ideas were rethought. Therefore, initially the flow of conscripts was low. This was facilitated by a large army of draft dodgers.

It is important to note that this reform not only formed a new army. Another of its tasks was to undermine the influence of the samurai class, which was based on the idea of ​​samurai as the only defenders of the country. By forming an army of peasants and merchants, the government deprived them of this privilege, thereby moving further in the matter of equalizing all classes.

At the same time, the conscript army plays an important role in the socialization of people who come from different classes, but at the same time have the same ranks, positions and live under the same roof. The only thing that really unites them is loyalty to the emperor, and against the background of this, class boundaries begin to disappear, giving way to a single Japanese nation. Of course, this happened in conjunction with other measures taken by the government to unite people, but the army, service in which was gradually turning from a duty into a privilege, played an important role in this process. After all, people who served in the armed forces, returning to civilian activity, continued to maintain within themselves this feeling of unity and loyalty to their “Emperor”.

Thus, Japan carried out the first phase of fundamental reforms, which laid the foundation for the further strengthening and development of the country. At this stage, the Meiji government had not yet achieved its goals, and the state still remained in the humiliating position that the Western powers imposed on it by concluding an agreement with the bakufu. However, the transformations carried out during this period did the most important thing: they changed the structure of society and, so to speak, “modernized” its creation.

The first task that faced the reformers at the beginning of the Meiji era was the task of destroying feudal foundations and forming a new society of the European type. The first transformations, such as agrarian and administrative reform, the military reform that had begun, and the reform of the legislative system were supposed to fulfill, among other things, precisely this task. With their help, the government created a capitalist society.

Of course, not everything planned was realized during this period. So, despite the enormous support from the state, Japanese industry could not yet somehow compete with foreign manufacturers. The budget was formed from taxes from agriculture. The armed forces continued to develop, but did not yet pose any threat to the Western powers. And yet the first steps were taken. It is not possible to transform a country into a powerful nation overnight. Naturally, for such tasks, first of all, time was needed. Fortunately for Japan, it had this time.

Liberal opposition in Japan. Transformations of the 1880s

Reforms of 1868-1870s certainly laid the foundation for the entire Meiji period, and therefore everything that followed it. However, as already mentioned, there were different opinions around these transformations, and at the highest level.

The government itself turned out to be not as homogeneous as it looked at first glance. Most of the government posts were occupied by representatives of the Satsuma and Choshu principalities, while representatives of Tosa and Hizen were in the minority. Dissatisfied with the current situation, people from Tos primarily, being more liberal-minded than their former comrades, began to use various ideas of Western enlighteners in order to attract the attention of society and, with its help, change their situation for the better.

In 1873, the most prominent representatives of Tosa - Goto Shojiro and Itagaki Taisuke, together with the future leader of the Satsuma samurai uprising Saigo Takamori and some other officials resigned from the government due to contradictions on the Korean issue.

On January 17, 1874, a group of liberals prepared and submitted a petition to the government, which proposed the establishment of a representative body - a national assembly, which was supposed to limit the omnipotence of officials. The petition was signed by: former Foreign Minister Soejima Taneomi, junior adviser Itagaki Taisuke, Goto Shojiro, Yuri Kimimasa, Eto Shimpei and others. The government rejected the petition, citing the people's unwillingness to take part in governing the country, although it did not refuse to create a representative body in the future.

We can say that it was this event that became the starting point in the emergence of the liberal opposition in Japan. The publication of the text of the petition sparked a big discussion in society. Educated people increasingly began to discuss Western ideas of freedom and equality. Various societies are emerging that study the works of Western educators, such as J.J. Rousseau, J. Mill, I. Bentham, etc. Some were also interested in the ideas of Russian revolutionary democrats.

This is how the “Freedom and People's Rights Movement” (Jiyuminkenundo) was born. As part of this movement, there was a process of development of the Japanese opposition from small local societies to national parties. In addition to organizations, the movement united many educators, publicists, and public figures, inspired by the spirit of liberalism and who considered it necessary to provide democratic reforms in the country.

The main driving force of the movement, as mentioned above, was the nobility (shizoku), primarily from the Tosa domain (Kochi Prefecture). In addition to the samurai, the nascent bourgeoisie, urban strata, merchants and wealthy peasants took part in the movement.

After leaving the government of Itagaki, Taisuke created with his supporters in January 1874 the “People's Party of Patriots” (Aikoku Koto). Heading this organization, he is preparing a petition submitted on January 17. However, after her rejection, he decides to return to his homeland in Kochi Prefecture, where, following the example of Goto Shojiro, he opened his own school.

On the basis of this school and other opposition circles in Kochi in April 1874, Itagaki created the “Society for Determining the Purpose in Life” (Risshisha), which included Aikoku Koto. The society consisted mainly of samurai from the former Tosa domain. On the day the society was founded, a proclamation was issued which stated that Rissisya stood for self-government, local autonomy, the creation of a legislative assembly and equality of estates. The society began organizing hospitals, schools, provided assistance to the poor and organized agricultural cooperatives.

Risshisha tried to unite the liberal opposition forces of Japan around himself. It sent its people to the prefectures to find contact with opponents of the government throughout the country. As a result, in February 1875, the “Society of Patriots” (Aikokusha) was formed. This political organization became the core of the “Movement for Freedom and People's Rights”; its branches opened throughout the state.

At the same time, the government could not turn a blind eye to the growth of the opposition, especially during this period, samurai uprisings broke out one after another throughout Japan, and terrorist acts were committed.

On the one hand, the Meijin leadership shared the ideas of democratizing the country, including the introduction of a constitution and the convening of parliament. On the other hand, the government, which was then headed by Okubo Toshimichi, considered these actions premature, since the population of Japan was not yet sufficiently educated, and some of the ideas of the opposition at that time seemed too radical to them.

To calm the country, the authorities decided to use the “carrot and stick” method, which is often used in such cases. In June 1875, the “Regulation on the Press” was introduced, it tightened police supervision over newspapers that zealously supported the “movement for people's rights” and introduced preliminary censorship in publications by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. However, in the same year, the emperor issues a decree on the gradual introduction of a parliamentary system. In his speech on May 20, 1875 on the occasion of the upcoming opening of the Assembly of Prefectural Authorities, he indirectly talks about this.

As can be seen from this saying, the authorities intended to continue democratic reforms. However, in what form they were to be implemented was not clear.

Due to the strengthening of measures to weaken the “movement for freedom and people's rights,” the Aikokusha organization was dissolved almost immediately after its creation and was restored only in September 1878 after the assassination of Okubo Toshimichi.

At the same time, for the period from 1875 to 1878. social changes are taking place in the movement. More and more new social strata are joining it. If at the beginning the “movement for people's rights” was almost exclusively samurai, then by 1878 - 1879. there was a significant increase in representatives of the urban strata, merchants, wealthy peasants, as well as the bourgeoisie.

The movement itself represents a huge palette of currents, from left to right forces, which often have nothing in common with each other.

In 1878, Aikokusha held a restoration congress. The organization adopts a program which, in particular, talks about the need to create a parliament.

Against the backdrop of the strengthening of the popular movement, two tendencies appeared in the “Society of Patriots” - a radical one, which considered nationwide protests necessary, and a moderate one, supporting petition actions. The second prevailed, and as a result, in 1880, Aikokusha was transformed into the “League for the Establishment of a National Assembly” (Kokkaikiseidomeikai).

The new organization took the lead in the growing petition movement. Convention delegates decided to lead the grassroots initiative, and by the end of that year, more than 250,000 people had signed 12 petitions and 41 memoranda. All these documents contained a demand for the immediate introduction of a representative government. At the second convention of the league in November 1880, a charter was adopted stating that the organization should not be dissolved until a parliament had been established.

In response to this, a decree “On Public Meetings and Organizations” is issued, tightening police control over society. Thus, the right to attend meetings in any way related to politics was prohibited to military personnel (active duty, as well as reserves of the first two categories), students, teachers, and police officers.

However, increased government pressure only affected large cities, which in turn contributed to the expansion of the movement in poorly controlled areas of the country.

October 1881 The Emperor promises to promulgate a constitution and create a national assembly within the next 10 years. The government sends a delegation led by Ito Hirobumi to Europe and the United States to study Western constitutions. These events create a split in the already motley “People's Rights Movement”. More moderate representatives of the Movement, supporting the government's actions, are dropping out of the political struggle.

The confrontation between the Meiji government and opposition forces is now moving in a different direction.

In October 1881, on the basis of the League for the Establishment of a National Assembly and the Movement for Freedom and People's Rights, the Constitutional Liberal Party (Rikken Jiyuto or simply Jiyuto) was created - the first full-fledged political party in Japan. It was headed by Itagaki Taisuke.

The social basis of this party was the intelligentsia, small and medium-sized liberal landowners, the rural bourgeoisie and some large entrepreneurs. Also, financial support was provided by the Mitsui company, which monopolized the textile industry.

Jiyuto's program was very laconic:

Our party strives to spread freedom and ensure the rights of everyone, achieves universal well-being and reforms of society.

Our party will fight for the introduction of the most perfect constitutional system.

Our party strives to achieve its goals in complete unity with those who share our principles and set themselves the same tasks.

As can be seen from the program, its compilers, as well as many members of the Jiyuto party, were greatly influenced by French enlighteners - this was reflected in the nature of the program, which traced the concepts of freedom, equality and fraternity.

The party actually immediately fell into the category of radical organizations, since its plans did not say anything about the monarchy. There was even an attempt on Itagaki's life (unsuccessful). Nevertheless, the government in mid-1882 gave Jiyuto official permission to operate.

In March 1882, a second political party was organized - the “Constitutional Party of Reform and Progress” (Rikken Kaishinto or simply Kaishinto). It was created and headed by Okuma Shigenobu.

It must be said that Okuma himself, like Itagaki Taisuke, left the government. However, he left his post only in 1881. All this time he was sympathetic to the ideas of the “Movement for Freedom and People's Rights.” While still in government, he proposed the introduction of a constitution and the immediate convening of parliament.

As a result of the crisis in 1881, Ito Hirobumi and other members of the government forced Okuma to leave his positions. After that, he went over to the opposition and declared his desire to create his own party.

Kaishinto's support was the large and middle urban bourgeoisie, large entrepreneurs, landowners who went into business, as well as moderate intelligentsia. The party was supported by the founder of the Mitsubishi concern, Iwasaki Yataro.

It is important to note that Kaishinto was supported even by the most famous socio-political figure in Japan of that era - Fukuzawa Yukichi. Many of his students also supported and even joined this party.

Compared to Jiyuto, Kaishinto was more moderate and even conservative. She used the British political system as a model.

Deeply honoring the imperial house, give happiness to the people.

Recognizing the main task of internal political reforms, to achieve the expansion of political rights.

By eliminating the interference of the central government, create a strong basis for local self-government.

Expand voting rights as society develops.

Conduct as many political negotiations as possible with foreign countries, expand trade relations with them.

To achieve security of the monetary system in precious metals.

As can be seen from the text, Kaishinto considered the institution of the emperor to be unshakable, but insisted on strengthening local self-government. This was a clear step aimed primarily at weakening the power of the government.

Despite the different programmatic theses, the differences between the parties of Jiyuto and Kaishinto were not so significant. However, there were constant clashes between them, on which they sometimes spent more energy than fighting the government.

Almost immediately after the creation of the Constitutional Reform Party, the pro-government Constitutional Imperial Party (Rikken Teiseito or simply Teiseito) was formed. Formally, the leader of the party was Fukuchi Genichiro, but in essence the decisive role was played by the highest government circles, led by Ito Hirobumi and Inoue Kaoru. The task of this party was to provide all possible opposition to other political parties and promote the ideas of the government.

The program reflected completely loyal ideas. The party did not receive the same social support as Jiyuto or Kaishinto. The imperial party consisted mainly of active-duty officials.

It must be said that in this period there were attempts to create an organization oriented towards socialist ideas. However, the labor movement, which was still weak at that time, was not able to implement these attempts, and moreover, the government tried in every possible way to suppress labor protests in the bud. Probably the most prominent at that time was the Eastern Socialist Party (Toyoshakaito), but it existed only for about a month, and then was dissolved by order of the police.

It can be said that at this stage there are only two political parties really operating in Japan: the Constitutional Liberal Party and the Constitutional Party of Reform and Progress.

Both parties were active in the prefectures. Jiyuto, for example, had great influence in the central regions around the capital and industrial centers.

The government, concerned about this course of events, introduced a law in 1882 prohibiting the creation of local branches of parties. The law also gave governors the right to restrict the activities of parties in the prefecture entrusted to him.

In response, in 1884, members of Jiyuto from neighboring Ibaraki Prefecture plotted to assassinate the governor of Fukushima, but the police quickly uncovered the plot and its participants were convicted, even seven were executed.

Within the camp of the Liberal Party itself, a split occurred again into supporters and opponents of radical methods of struggle. However, the old leadership of the party and Itagaki Taisuke himself adhered to a moderate position, so the proliferation of extreme ideas began to greatly disturb them.

In the heated peasant uprisings of those years, radical representatives of Jiyuto became frequent leaders.

The government intensified its punitive onslaught and did not allow these protests to grow.

During the Jiyuto Party Congress in March 1883, the radical wing prevailed over the moderate. As a result, Itagaki Taisuke remained as party leader, but the places of his closest assistants were taken by the leaders of the left wing of the party.

Fearing the growth of aggressive currents in the People's Rights Movement itself, Itagaki and his supporters in October 1884 decided to dissolve the Liberal Party.

Having failed to achieve its goals, the “Movement for Freedom and People’s Rights” ceased to exist. However, many of its former participants continued their political activities independently, within the framework of the radical or moderate ideas that they professed.

Kaishinto essentially followed the same path. Although the party formally continued to exist, Okuma Shigenobu and most of his supporters left its ranks. He himself decided that full-fledged work of the party before the creation of parliament was not possible. The party stopped registering new members and virtually disappeared.

As for the Constitutional Imperial Party, it was dissolved back in September 1883.

In this way we can draw a line under the first stage of the development of the Japanese liberal organized opposition.

It cannot be said that after the dissolution of the first political parties, the liberal opposition completely ceased to exist, but in the period between the cessation of party activities in 1884 and the convening of parliament in 1890, the basis of the political struggle against the government was primarily formed by various radical circles that arose in the ruins of Jiyuto . It was these people who most often led the popular protests that took place in many parts of Japan.

At the same time, Goto Shojiro created in 1887 the “Association of General Consent” (Daidodanketsu), which included former members of the Jiyuto, Kaishinto parties and even the Imperial Party. This organization became the flagship of a new political movement supporting the reorganization of political parties and the creation of a parliamentary system.

The "Movement for Freedom and People's Rights" is of interest in itself. Until recently, Japan lived in a world where only samurai thought and spoke about politics, and only the samurai elite had real power. However, in the first ten years of its existence, this movement developed from small samurai circles to parties covering the entire country. More and more new social strata are joining it. The old structure quickly collapses, giving way to a new one.

Politics, albeit slowly, is still ceasing to be a matter of a narrow circle of the elite. This elite itself (sometimes forcedly) meets the demands of society, making compromise decisions.

The decision to introduce a constitution confronted the government with the need to strengthen its own power and bring the structure of public administration to the parameters laid down in the future constitution.

For this purpose, Dajokan was abolished in 1885. In its place comes a cabinet of ministers (naikaku) formed on a European model.

The Great Council of State was no longer up to the task. The principle of the supremacy of aristocrats, who were supposed to occupy all leading positions, did not correspond to the realities of the time. Most of the aristocrats did not have the necessary qualities for this work.

Another reason for the introduction of the European system of government was to demonstrate to foreigners that Japan was continuing on the path of civilization. Such changes were among many measures the government took to improve the country's image abroad.

However, the government reorganization did not affect existing personnel. Despite the death of such important political figures as Iwakura Tomomi, Kido Takayoshi and Okubo Toshimichi, people from the same Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa and Hizen continued to be at the helm of the country. In this matter, everything remained unchanged for now.

The Cabinet of Ministers consisted of ten ministries: foreign affairs (headed by Inoue Kaoru, Choshu Domain), internal affairs (Yamagata Aritomo, Choshu), finance (Matsukata Masayoshi, Satsuma Domain), ground forces (Oyama Iwao, Satsuma), navy ( Saigo Tsugumichi, Satsuma), justice (Yamada Akiyoshi, Choshu), education (Mori Arinori, Satsuma), agriculture and trade (Tani Kanjo, Tosa), development of Hokkaido (Enomoto Takeaki, former Tokugawa vassal). At the same time, there was also a ministry of the imperial court, which was not included in the cabinet. Thus, the emperor distanced himself even further from direct control and at the same time from potential criticism against him.

The prototype of the new state structure was the German government established by Bismarck. The main initiator of the reform, Ito Hirobumi, believed that the German system of government was best suited for Japan.

Ito himself headed the created cabinet, becoming the first prime minister of Japan. This man played a vital role in the Meiji era. He took the initiative to introduce a constitution and parliament.

About the government reform, Ito Hirobumi wrote: “As a consequence of this reorganization, ministers were faced with the need to bear individual responsibility directly to the emperor... The purpose of the reorganization was, on the one hand, to give greater importance to the functions of ministers and strengthen their responsibility and, on the other, to support unity of the cabinet, preventing all possible disagreements and hesitations among its individual members."

That is, this reform, among other things, was also aimed at increasing the efficiency of the government. Maintaining unity as a whole and at the same time increasing the responsibility of each individual was a necessary measure to strengthen the position of the government as opposed to the parliament created in the future.

In addition to the reorganization of the central government, changes are also taking place in local government. Governors were still appointed to the prefectures from the center, but now elected assemblies were created in the prefectures and cities. These assemblies were given the right to deal with local issues.

Another initiative of Ito Hirobumi was the adoption on July 7, 1884 of a decree introducing new aristocratic titles. The names for the titles were taken from ancient China, but they were translated into European languages ​​as princes, marquises, counts, viscounts and barons. Even those who had never been one, but provided (or continued to provide) an important service to the state, were recorded as aristocrats. A very large number of the new aristocracy were people from their former principalities of Satsuma and Choshu.

Thus, Ito Hirobumi prepared the social basis for the future House of Peers. In addition, the current political elite has long wanted to secure its status, and in a hereditary form. Moreover, the old aristocracy was thus equalized with the new one, thereby cementing the connection between the past and the present.

Reforms of the 80s XIX century in Japan became an important link in the transition to a constitutional state. At the same time, the reorganization of management played a role in the Western recognition of Japan as a “civilized” state.

Meanwhile, after the emperor's decree on the introduction of a constitution, the government worked closely in this direction. The decree itself already spoke volumes: “We, who sit on the Throne, ... have long had in mind to gradually introduce a constitutional form of government, so that the successors of Our Throne could have firmly established rules for their leadership.

Systems of government vary from country to country, but sudden and extraordinary changes cannot occur without great upheaval.

Our ancestors in heaven watch Our actions, and We are aware of Our responsibility to them for the conscientious fulfillment of Our high duties, in accordance with the principles and constant growth of glory bequeathed to Us by them.

We hereby declare that in the 23rd year of Meiji (1890) We will establish a Parliament to give full effect to the decision We have announced, and We instruct Our faithful subjects, engaged in carrying out Our commands, to make all necessary preparations at that time.

As for the limitation of the Imperial prerogatives and the structure of Parliament, we will decide about this later and announce it at the appropriate time.

We notice that Our people are gravitating towards too rapid development, neglecting that caution and prudence, which alone can create lasting progress; and We warn Our subjects, noble and simple, so that they know Our will; those who think to defend sudden and violent changes that disturb the peace of Our state will incur our displeasure."

If you believe the text, the emperor seems to continue to consistently fulfill the promises he made in the very “Oath in Five Articles” that he made at the very beginning of his reign. The decree also explains why parliament will not be created until 1890. In addition, a negative attitude towards all ideas of radical change and those who support them is emphasized. Thus, the foundation of a constitution is laid, which must be granted “from above.”

The idea of ​​introducing a constitution has been in the air since the Meiji Revolution. Already in 1870, Ito Hirobumi, on behalf of the government, went to the United States to familiarize himself with American constitutional law. With the advent of the “Movement for Freedom and People's Rights,” many of its participants and supporters created their own projects for the basic law of the country, which in different ways combined the ideas of Western democracy and traditional Japanese foundations.

As mentioned above, to develop the constitution, in 1882 a special mission led by Ito Hirobumi was sent to Europe and the USA for a comprehensive study of Western constitutions.

Ito was most interested in Germany, or more precisely in the Prussian Constitution of 1850, one of the most conservative constitutions at that time. In addition, in Germany he was able to talk about constitutional construction with Otto von Bismarck himself. His mission also worked with many reputable German lawyers on issues of interest to the Japanese. Returning home, Ito had already decided what the Japanese constitution should be.

By the way, this also explains why public administration reforms during this period also followed the German model.

Upon his return to Japan, Ito Hirobumi was appointed by the emperor to head a special group that began drafting a constitution. This group, in addition to Ito himself, included only three other people - Ito Miyoji, Inoue Kowashi and Kaneko Kentaro. All of them were high-ranking government officials. This group was not part of the government, it worked independently and reported directly to the emperor.

The entire process of drafting the constitution took place in the strictest secrecy. Since Ito Hirobumi was also the prime minister, he could not devote much time to this matter. Therefore, he was only the coordinator of the group. The work was set up as follows: each group member prepared his part, it was discussed by others, after which Ito Hirobumi got acquainted with it.

During the work, contradictions arose regarding the extent to which the democratic principle would be developed in the new constitutional system. Ito and his colleagues understood that excessive freedom would undermine the foundations of the monarchy. In addition, there was concern about the possibility of some political forces lobbying for their interests.

The question also arose of how the constitution would be adopted. Conservative forces believed that the emperor's word would be enough. The liberals demanded the convening of a national constituent assembly for this purpose. As if making a compromise, Ito Hirobumi proposes to create a special body - the Privy Council (Sumitsuin). The decree on its creation was issued on April 30, 1888.

The Privy Council became the main advisory body, its members were appointed by the emperor himself. The chairman of the council was Ito Hirobumi, who even resigned as prime minister for this purpose. It included the main ministers and senior princes.

The Privy Council continued to work on the creation of a constitution. The emperor was present at every meeting dedicated to the constitution. He often supported certain proposals that might not have ended up in the final document without his help.

By 1889, work on the basic law was completed. On February 11 - the day when, according to legend, the first Japanese Emperor Jimmu ascended the throne (Empire Founding Day), the first constitution of Japan was proclaimed in the new imperial palace in Tokyo. It was given to the people by the emperor.

Actually, the fact that this is an “imperial” constitution is also indicated by the fact that it begins with the first chapter of the same name - Emperor.

The constitution was small in scope - only 76 articles, which were divided into 7 chapters: Emperor, Rights and duties of subjects, Imperial Parliament, Ministers of State and Council under the Emperor, Court, Finance, Additional rules. There were only three original articles in it, 46 were borrowed from the Prussian constitution, the rest from the constitutions of other countries.

As Article 1 states, “The Japanese Empire is under the supreme power and control of a single dynasty of emperors, uninterrupted from eternity.” According to the constitution, the person of the emperor is sacred and is officially deified. The power of the emperor (officially) was practically unlimited: “The emperor, as the head of state, had the right to declare war and peace, conclude treaties, convene and dissolve parliament, lead the armed forces, grant the nobility, etc. Legislative power, according to the Constitution, was also entrusted to the “emperor and parliament "(Article 5). The emperor approved laws and prescribed their implementation. Based on Article 8 of the constitution, imperial decrees issued in the event of “an urgent need to maintain public order” during breaks in the work of parliament had the force of law. These decrees appeared as "usually during parliamentary holidays, which lasted 9 months a year. The emperor also had the right to impose a state of siege in the country." However, imperial decrees required parliamentary approval to enter into force, but even here Article 8 provided a loophole to circumvent this need.

The Japanese Parliament was formed from two chambers - the upper (House of Peers) and the lower (House of Representatives). The House of Peers consisted of 400 people. It was recruited from aristocrats simultaneously in several ways, but all members were appointed by the emperor.

The House of Representatives was elected for four years. The right to vote was given to persons who had reached the age of 25, paid a direct tax of 15 yen (a significant amount of money in those years), and had lived in one place for at least one and a half years. Women did not receive the right to vote. Military personnel also did not take part in the elections.

In fact, the main prerogative and leverage for the lower house was the approval of the budget. The House could not pass the budget, and then the government would have to rely on last year's budget. This could not continue for long, and then the government would have to compromise.

Only two articles talk about the government. The Cabinet of Ministers is still accountable only to the emperor.

The Privy Council remained as the main advisory body under the emperor. It was his responsibility to make recommendations to the monarch. In fact, all important issues considered in parliament and government had to be approved by the council.

Chapter two of the constitution guaranteed all fundamental human rights, but clauses were added to them under which these rights did not apply.

In general, the constitution fulfilled its role - the role of the fundamental law from which the further development of law took place. An entire political system was subsequently built on the basis of the constitution.

The introduction of parliament was a kind of revolution for the 19th century, in which there were still very few countries with democratic institutions.

Of course the 1889 constitution was not as democratic as it could have been. People who received political rights accounted for only 1% of the country's population. The House of Peers limited the House of Representatives in many ways. But for an objective look, it is necessary to remember that just 25 years ago Japan was a traditional feudal state. Those who do not want to contact the outside world, much less adopt legal norms and other innovations from there.

During this period of time, a new state emerged in Japan, with a society capable of freely expressing its political preferences and defending them. This society, however, has retained traditional features, but this is not surprising because relatively little time has passed.

It should also be noted that during this period of time, Japan became the only constitutional country in Asia with a functioning parliament. By comparison, the Ottoman Empire introduced a constitution that lasted about a year and then sank into oblivion. The Russian Empire had a parliament only at the beginning of the 20th century. All other Asian countries were enslaved by the Western powers and no progress towards democracy was observed there.

Thus, Japan remained the first country to follow Western countries and continue to confidently move in this direction.

3. Political development of Japan in 1889-1912.

A new stage of political struggle in Japan began in 1890, when elections to the country's first parliament were held within the framework of the 1889 Constitution.

The old political parties Jiyuto and Kaishinto had by that time begun to gain strength again. As a result of the elections on July 1, 1890, these opposition groups together received the largest number of seats (170 out of 300) in the lower house. At the same time, Jiyuto re-established itself as a political party only in March 1891.

At the very first session of the elected parliament in November 1890, a struggle began to reduce government spending, reduce taxes and reduce the cost of the state apparatus. Despite the opposition of the current Prime Minister Yamagata Aritomo, the government agreed to concessions. As a result, parliament adopted the budget, but expenses were reduced by 10%.

By the second session at the end of 1891, Okuma and Itagaki, the leaders of their parties, formed a coalition that was supposed to create a united front to fight the government.

During the second session, the coalition refused to accept a program to build a navy. This clash with the government led to the first early dissolution of parliament in history.

The new election campaign of 1892 took place under the banner of lawlessness - it was accompanied by corruption, bribery and even reprisals, which were secretly sanctioned by the Minister of the Interior. With these measures, the government tried to prevent as many opposition candidates from entering parliament as possible. In Kochi and Saga prefectures (Itagaki and Okuma constituencies), police even opened fire on unarmed crowds, causing heavy casualties.

Despite the government's opposition, the opposition once again won an absolute majority of seats (163) in the lower house. As a result, due to the actions of the government during the election campaign, parliament at the next session in May 1892 passed a vote of no confidence in him. However, the government refused to resign, citing the constitution, according to which it was responsible only to the emperor.

At the same session, a conflict occurred between the upper and lower houses. The lower house cut the government budget, and the upper house restored it. Outraged deputies of the lower house appealed to the emperor with a protest; he referred this issue to the Privy Council, which recognized the priority of the lower house in adopting the budget. However, the government, again citing the constitution, left the previous year's budget in force.

In March 1894, Jiyuto and Kaishinto united most of the small political groups around themselves and eventually again received an absolute majority in parliament - Jiyuto received 120 mandates (against 80 in the previous elections), Kaishinto 50 mandates. Pro-government forces were again defeated.

At the session opened in May 1894, parliament again put forward a vote of no confidence in the government, accusing it of illegally dissolving the parliament of the previous convocation. On June 1, the emperor issued a decree dissolving the House of Representatives. By this time, the atmosphere in parliament and among voters had become extremely tense - dissatisfaction among large sections of the Japanese population with government policies had intensified. An internal political crisis was brewing.

However, the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) calmed the situation in the best possible way. The wave of patriotism that swept the country gave rise to unexpected cooperation and harmony in relations between the ruling circles and parliamentarians. Being on different sides of the barricades, all politicians suddenly felt their unity in a period of national danger. Parliament accepted wartime budgets without any objections and provided other assistance to the cabinet. The experience of working together for the common good opened up the prospect of compromise between oligarchs and party politicians. From the point of view of officials, reaching agreement promised strong support for their programs from legislators, as well as confirmation of the success of the constitutional experiment. For party politicians, this was a chance to gain cabinet positions and increase their influence on the country's politics.

However, after the end of the war, the opposition returned to aggressive policies with renewed vigor. This was due to the fact that commercial and industrial groups supporting the opposition became noticeably stronger as a result of the war with China and began to more strongly claim their right to participate in political leadership. Therefore, the highest state bureaucracy could no longer simply ignore parliament when developing and implementing this or that political course and began to look for ways to interact with it.

Ito Hirobumi was the first Japanese prime minister to approach the idea of ​​a compromise agreement with the most influential parliamentary party.

Faced with severe criticism in parliament, Ito negotiated with the Jiyuto party, which at that time had 108 seats in parliament. In exchange for her support, he brought Itagaki Taisuke into his cabinet as Minister of Internal Affairs.

“The next Prime Minister Matsukata Masayoshi resorted to a similar agreement in 1896. He agreed to support the leadership of the Shimpoto (Progressive Party) party created shortly before, which included members of Kaishinto and about 50 deputies from other opposition groups. The leader of the new party, Okuma Shigenobu received the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, this agreement turned out to be fragile. In the fall of 1897, disagreements arose in the government, and Okuma resigned his post in November. At the next session, Shimpoto voted together with Jiyuto for a vote of no confidence, after which the Matsukata cabinet resigned. "

The next government was again headed by Ito Hirobumi. However, it lasted only a few months (January-July 1898). This happened due to Ito's unsuccessful attempt to reconcile with Jiyuto. As a result, he was unable to pass his bills through parliament and resigned.

The emergence of the practice of parliamentary agreements and the impact that the position of political parties had on the fate of cabinets testified to the growing influence of parliament in determining the political course of the country.

Forced to resign, Ito Hirobumi leaves other important government posts, setting out to create a political party that would become a strong support for the government in parliament. On this basis, his rapprochement with the leaders of opposition parties took place. In June 1898, Jiyuto and Shimpoto united into a new Constitutional Party (Kenseito). Ito managed to obtain the emperor's consent to have a new government formed from members of the newly created party. Not a single member of the Privy Council, including even Yamagata Aritomo, agreed to head the government under the conditions of Kenseito's dominance in the parliament.

As a result of this, on June 30, 1898, the first so-called party cabinet in Japanese history was formed. All members of the cabinet (except for the ministers of war and navy) belonged to the new party.

However, the new government's stay in power was short-lived. Kenseito was formed as a party a week before she came to power and essentially remained the same fragile alliance of Jiyuto and Shimpoto, with all their past differences.

As a result of an incident involving the Minister of Education Ozaki Yukio, the leadership of the former Jiyuto announced the dissolution of Kenseito and the creation of a new party with the same name, which did not include any of the members of Shimpoto. At the same time, the ministers who were members of Jiyuto resigned from the government.

In response to this, Okuma renamed the remnants of the "old" Kenseito (and essentially the old Shimpoto) to Kenseihonto (Genuine Constitutional Party) and tried to form a government only from its members, his actions were not approved by the emperor. As a result, on October 31, 1898, the cabinet fell without having time to hold a single parliamentary session.

At the end of November 1898, the newly confirmed Prime Minister of Yamagata, Aritomo, was able to conclude an agreement with Hoshi Toru, in fact the leader of the “new” Kenseito. For the adoption of the new budget, Yamagata promised to change the electoral legislation in a liberal direction.

In 1900, Kenseito broke off relations with Yamagata and decided to enter into an alliance with Ito Hirobumi, offering him the post of party chairman. However, Ito counted on creating his own party and therefore refused the offer.

The basis of the influence of Ito’s party was close ties with large financial and industrial concerns, primarily Mitsui and Sumitomo. Thus, its creation became a new stage in the strengthening of big capital in Japanese politics.

August 1900 A policy statement of the new party, written by Ito himself, was published, which was named the Society of Political Friends (Rikken Seiyukai or simply Seiyukai). The Seiyukai consisted mainly of representatives of the former Kenseito. In addition, a group of Kenseihonto members led by Ozaki Yukio came to it. As a result, the Seiyukai had a majority in the lower house of parliament (152 seats).

At this stage of the internal political struggle, there is a gradual change in generations of the country's political elite and with it the withering away of old feudal-compatriot relations in political circles; samurai Satsuma and Choshu are being replaced by graduates of the University of Tokyo and Western educational institutions. Commercial and industrial circles are finally establishing themselves in the political administration of Japan.

Further developments lead to a new form of political conflict - confrontation between civil and military authorities. At that time, the Seiyukai did not have a worthy counterweight and maintained a monopoly in parliament. And only in the next era this order was disrupted.

It should be noted that in connection with the scandal that arose around the election campaign of 1892, a crisis broke out in the government. Against this background, a new extra-constitutional body is being created - genro (senior statesmen). It included such influential politicians as Inoue Kaoru, Ito Hirobumi, Kuroda Kiyotaka and Yamagata Aritomo. It was a very small body in terms of the number of people, but it had enormous influence. Almost all members of the genro came from Choshu and Satsuma. All strategically important issues were resolved through the genro. At the same time, there was no constitutional basis for this body; it acted behind the scenes.

During the last stage of the Meiji era from 1901 to 1912. The position of Prime Minister of Japan was occupied by only two politicians: the leader of the Seiyukai party, the successor of Ito Hirobumi - Saionji Kinmochi, and Katsura Taro - a protege of the military “party” led by Yamagata Aritomo. Interestingly, they became prime ministers several times, taking turns, replacing each other. That is, on June 2, 1901, the cabinet of ministers was headed by Katsura Taro, on January 7, 1906, he was replaced by Saionji Kinmochi, on July 14, 1908, the cabinet was again headed by Katsura, on August 30, 1911, he was again replaced by Saionji, and on December 21, 1912 again Katsura's office arrives.

Of course, it is not surprising that Saionji was labeled a “liberal” and Katsura a militarist. However, in essence, the policies of their offices were not fundamentally different from each other. For example, on the issue of the military power of the empire, they pursued a fairly similar policy.

The differences should be looked for behind their backs. More precisely, who supported which sections of society.

Katsura, a native of Choshu, was a professional military man. At one time he rose to the rank of general. And behind him naturally stood the military-bureaucratic group, as well as the owners of defense enterprises, whose profits directly depended on government orders.

Saionji came from the court aristocracy (kuge) and lived for a long time in France. He joined the Seiyukai party, and in 1903 he headed it. The party had close ties with such industrial giants as the Mitsui, Sumitomo, Furukawa, and Yasuda concerns. Therefore, the coming to power of the Saionji cabinet meant the strengthening of the influence of the big bourgeoisie, as well as, in a sense, the strengthening of the influence of parliament.

As already mentioned, spending on the army was impressive under both cabinets. So, during his first term as prime minister, Saionji passes through parliament a new budget, according to which three new divisions are additionally formed in Japan (at that time there were only sixteen of them). In addition, a new program for a large-scale increase in the navy was being developed. And this was after the Russo-Japanese War, which was extremely difficult for the Japanese economy.

In 1908, having engineered the fall of the Saionji cabinet, Katsura returned to power. He holds both the position of Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, which allows him to freely draw up the military budget.

The Japanese government continues to spend huge amounts of money on the army. In the financial year 1910-1911 alone, the volume of military expenditures amounted to approximately 34% (!) of the country’s budget.

With all this, both the Saionji cabinet and the Katsura cabinet confirmed the policy of improving the economy after the Russo-Japanese War and repaying the national debt. Naturally, with such expenditures on the army, new financial sources were needed. They usually became new taxes that were levied on the population of the country. Once again the burden of modernization fell on ordinary citizens.

In the 90s of the XIX century. Due to the significant development of industry and the growth of the working class, the labor movement is gaining momentum. It covers all industrial areas of the country, as well as the railway industry.

After the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), which required significant costs, the situation of the workers did not improve at all. The government was more interested in expanding the military budget and supporting companies associated with the army and navy. Nobody simply cared about the problems of the workers except the workers themselves.

The authorities' lack of interest in dealing with the workers only added fuel to the fire. Various socialist ideas spread increasingly among the proletarians.

In the 1880s The Eastern Socialist Party, under pressure from the police, was dissolved without starting full-fledged work. However, we must not forget that the level of industry in those years was low. The party still had too little social support.

In July 1897, the Society for Promoting the Organization of Workers' Trade Unions was created under the leadership of Katayama Sen. The society carried out agitation among the workers. It demanded the introduction of factory legislation.

The work of this organization contributed to the development of trade union activity among workers. In 1897, metalworkers created their own trade union. In 1898, trade unions of machinists and printers were created. Moreover, very often these young organizations participated in strikes and demonstrations.

In 1898, also with the participation of Katayama Sen, the Society for the Study of Socialism was formed, which began research in order to find out what socialism is in its essence.

Nevertheless, the government paid attention to the growth of the labor movement and even began to prepare a law to “settle relations between workers and entrepreneurs,” but in the end, in 1897, a bill was prepared that was only supposed to limit child and female labor, and only in large enterprises. But this law was not adopted either, since the then Prime Minister Yamagata Aritomo did not even allow it to be considered.

A new law on workers came out already in 1900. But it meant cooperation of workers, and not some restrictions for entrepreneurs.

Also in 1900, a law was passed on police measures to maintain public peace. He nullified many of the workers' achievements, in particular, most of the trade unions stopped working and dissolved. After this, the labor movement began to decline, having only just begun to develop.

However, this did not prevent members of the Society for the Study of Socialism from organizing the Japanese Social Democratic Party (Nihonshakaiminshuto) on May 20, 1901. It was attended by Kotoku Denjiro and Katoyama Sen. True, this party was closed by the police on the same day that it was opened.

“The platform of the new Social Democratic Party set out the following 8 principles: 1) all people are brothers, regardless of race and political differences; 2) in order to establish universal peace, it is necessary first of all to completely destroy all weapons; 3) the final elimination of class society; 4) socialization of land and capital necessary as means of production; 5) socialization of communications and transport: railways, ships and bridges; 6) equal distribution of wealth; 7) political equality, equal political rights for the entire population; 8) all expenses for education for universal equal education of the people must be borne by the state."

Judging by this document, it no longer seems surprising how quickly the authorities banned the party. Imperialism was developing in the country, and militarization was in full swing. Ideas about general disarmament and socialization of property must have seemed incredibly radical to the police.

Although Katayama Sen himself wrote that there was no radicalism in their organization, especially since the party opposed violence and revolution as a means of achieving power. The party manifesto emphasized: “Parliament is the arena of our activities in the future; the day our party achieves a majority in parliament, the time will come when we will realize our plans.”

True, he also wrote (these are his later thoughts) that the Social Democratic Party was inherently petty-bourgeois and did not stand on the principles of Marxism.

After the dissolution of the party, confusion began in the ranks of the socialists. The position of Christian socialism is strengthening. Due to the relative moderation of the Social Democrats, anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists are becoming widespread due to their more radical methods of struggle.

However, the core of the party remains, which, despite the ban, continues to conduct agitation and propaganda activities. The Socialist Association is created. The publication of the newspaper "Workers' World" continues (in 1902 it was renamed "Socialism"), which was the mouthpiece of the socialist movement and also played an educational role.

At this time, Japan was in a state of preparation for the Russian-Japanese War (1904-1905), and anti-Russian propaganda was coming from everywhere in the country. Newspapers published articles calling for people to become active on the continent and start a war with Russia. In contrast, Katayama Sen and Kotoku Denjiro and their associates toured the country, giving lectures and performances on anti-war issues.

“Everywhere we went, we managed to create departments of the Socialist Association. The core of our anti-war propaganda was the thesis that this would be a capitalist war, which would inevitably bring further suffering and poverty to the workers, as was the case during the Sino-Japanese War.”

In November 1903, the "Common People's Society" (Heimingxia) was formed. This society began publishing the newspaper Heiminshimbun, which became a mouthpiece for anti-war propaganda. Even during the war years the newspaper continued to be published. Its circulation reached 8 thousand copies, this is a very serious indicator, so we can say that this topic was of interest to many people.

After the Russo-Japanese War, there was a temporary revitalization of the labor movement. Against this background, a split is brewing among socialists into supporters of radical methods of struggle and moderates.

In 1906, the Japanese Socialist Party (Nihonshakaito) was created. In order not to be banned again, a clause “on the struggle for socialism within the framework of the law” is included in the party program.

However, the split among socialists is growing. Kotoku Denjiro now leads the anarcho-syndicalist wing. Largely thanks to him, at the second party congress the item “on the struggle for socialism within the framework of the law” was excluded from the program. A few days after this, the party was again banned by the authorities.

After this, the final split of the socialists occurs. Radical supporters of Kotoku Denjiro in 1907 in Osaka begin to print the newspaper "Osaka Heiminshimbun". The moderates, together with Katayama Sen, founded their newspaper "Shakaishimbun" next year.

In 1910, a trial of anarchists took place. Kotoku and his supporters were subjected to brutal repression, after which the leader and several of his associates were sentenced to death, and the rest were sent to hard labor.

In 1912, Katayama was also convicted, but he was soon released again. After some time, he left Japan and went to the USA.

Thus, the labor movement in Japan during the Meiji era never found its leaders and ideologists. The socialist organizations consisted mainly of the intelligentsia and the petty bourgeoisie. As soon as they began to be active, trying to enlist the support of the workers and lead their movements, the government used harsh repressive measures that threw the socialists back, not allowing them to gain a foothold on what they had achieved. Therefore, after the last powerful rise of the labor movement in the Meiji era after the Russo-Japanese War, by 1908 it was seriously weakening.

So, in the second half of the Meiji era, Japan no longer carries out such radical reforms as in the first half, limiting itself to adjustments and development of old transformations. Gradually, the country integrates into itself everything that was once borrowed from the outside world. Institutions such as the constitution, parliament, cabinet of ministers already in the 90s. XIX century become an integral part of Japanese reality, which it would seem have been here for a long time.

At this stage, power still remains in the hands of a small group of oligarchs. However, this structure is gradually becoming obsolete, giving way to party cabinets and parliamentary parties.

It must be said that the second half of the Meiji era marks the completion of the formation of the Japanese nation. Consolidation around the monarch has done its job; now every resident of the Japanese islands, first of all, considers himself a subject of the emperor - a Japanese. The two major wars that Japan fought showed that even irreconcilable political enemies, in the event of danger threatening the state, are ready to forget about their interests for the good of the homeland and the glory of the imperial house.

However, having embarked on the path of imperialist wars and colonial policies, socio-economic problems typical of such states are developing in Japan, which the Meiji successors will have to solve.

CONCLUSION

The political development of Japan during the Meiji era was determined by the following factors:

.Internal factors: the crisis of feudal society and attempts to overcome it;

.External factors: threat of attack from Western powers, danger of possible economic enslavement.

These factors determined the direction and course of reforms for most of the Meiji period.

The main goal of the reforms was to create a developed state capable of standing up for itself, as one of the slogans of that time says - “A rich country has a strong army.”

Reforms were aimed at all spheres of society. Everything had to be modernized, even human consciousness. The Japanese understood that the power of Western armies was not only in their weapons. The essence of the problem is much deeper, and in order to understand it, it was necessary to first master Western science.

During the transformations in management, there was a gradual transition from traditional bodies to European-style government institutions. There was also a process of centralization of power and, as a consequence, the introduction of prefectures to replace principalities.

Important were the transformations in the symbolism of the emperor, who from a distant, invisible sacred object turns into a visible sovereign who really rules and sets an example for his subjects. This was another step in the construction of a unified Japanese identity.

After the revolution of 1868, the main political force was the government consisting of representatives of the southwestern principalities. After the crisis of 1873, this force splits and now, in addition to the main center, there are also opposition forces opposing it, the most influential of which was the “Movement for Freedom and People's Rights.”

In the process of forming an opposition, four stages can be distinguished:

the formation of a liberal opposition and the creation of various political societies;

creation of the first political parties;

the creation of the first parliamentary political parties and the beginning of their influence on the government;

full integration of political parties into the public administration system.

A common feature of all political forces was the relative moderation of the views of their leaders, which influenced the radicalism, but not the revolutionary nature of the struggle of most movements. This is due to the patriarchal thinking of the first generation of liberals, brought up in the spirit of Confucian loyalty.

By the second half of the Meiji period, the emphasis of reforms shifted towards intensifying foreign policy. By this time, the formation of an empire and a single nation was entering its final phase. The primary reforms had already yielded results; the construction of the new state was essentially completed with the adoption of the constitution in 1889. The renewed state now wanted to test its strength, which it did on its closest neighbors.

The transformations of this period laid the foundation for the economic and political independence of Japan, but to some extent they also pushed it to conquer new markets and a raw material base for a young, developing industry outside its borders.

At this time, the authorities already have forces ready to lobby the interests of big capital. This is also a kind of indicator that the reforms have completed their main task. The outdated feudal system was replaced by a capitalist one, the danger of external invasion or economic enslavement of the country has, in fact, been exhausted.

It can be said that in the course of internal political transformations, Japan managed to quickly eliminate the gap with the advanced powers and begin to “speak” with them on equal terms, which is what the Meiji government sought. The set goals were achieved.

LIST OF SOURCES AND REFERENCES USED

I Sources

1.Texts of decrees and sayings of Emperor Meiji // Japanese about Japan / Ed. D.I.Shreydeira.SPb., 1907.

The Constitution of Japan of 1889 // Bogdanovich T. Essays from the past and present of Japan. St. Petersburg, 1905.

Katayama Sen. On the question of the origin and development of Marxism in Japan. M., 1960.

II Literature

4. Bugaeva D.P. Japanese publicists of the late 19th century. M., 1978.

Vandenberg H. Historical development of Japan. From the founding of the state to the Battle of Tsushima. St. Petersburg, 1905.

Datsyshen V. G. New history of Japan. Krasnoyarsk, 2007.

Deinorov E. History of Japan. M., 2011.

Eliseev D. History of Japan. Between China and the Pacific Ocean. St. Petersburg, 2009.

Eremin V.N. History of the legal system of Japan. M., 2010.

Siebold A. The era of great reforms in Japan St. Petersburg, 1905.

History of state and law of foreign countries. / Ed. O.A. Zhidkova, N.A. Krasheninnikova. M., 2003. Part 2.

History of Japan / Ed. A.E. Zhukova. M., 1998. T. 2.

Kovalenko I.I. Essays on the history of the communist movement in Japan. M., 1979.

Kovalchuk M.K. Government crisis of 1873: domestic and foreign policy reasons // Japan Yearbook. M., 2002.

Kuchma V.V. State and law of modern times (XVII-XIX centuries). Volgograd, 2002.

Leshchenko N.F. The Meiji Revolution in the works of Japanese Marxist historians. M., 1984.

McClain J. L. Japan. From the Tokugawa shogunate to the 21st century. M., 2011.

Meshcheryakov A.N. Emperor Meiji and his Japan. M., 2009.

Meshcheryakov A. N. Japanese Emperor and Russian Tsar. Element base. M., 2004.

Mikhailova Yu.D. Socio-political thought of Japan (60-80s of the 19th century). M., 1991.

Nikolaev A.A. Essays on the history of the Japanese people, St. Petersburg, 1905.

Norman G. The Emergence of the Modern State in Japan. Soldier and peasant in Japan. M., 1961.

Norman G. The Formation of Capitalist Japan. Economic and political problems of the Meiji period. M., 1953.

General outline of the sciences of law / Ed. YamamotoKeiichi.Tokyo. 1972.

Essays on the modern history of Japan (1640-1917) / Ed. A.L. Galperin. M., 1958.

Later D. Japan. Geographical and statistical essay. Vladivostok, 1906.

Sovasteev V.V. Liberalism in Japan // Russia and the Asia-Pacific region. M., 2004.

Sovasteev V.V. Essays on the history of Japan. From Tokugawa Ieyasu to Hashimoto Ryutaro. Vladivostok, 2008.

Sovasteev V.V. Hirobumi Ito in the interior of Japanese history // Japan today. M., 2003.

Thames R. Japan: history of the country. St. Petersburg, 2009.

Toyama Shigeki. Meiji Ishin (The Collapse of Feudalism in Japan). M., 1959.

Fainberg E.Ya. The internal and international position of Japan in the middle of the 19th century. M., 1954.

Honey Goro. Japanese Empire. History of the land of samurai. M., 2014.

Honey Goro. History of the Japanese people. M., 1957.

Hattori Corefus. Essays on the history of the labor movement in Japan. M., 1955.

Japan: experience of modernization / Ed. E.V. Molodyakova. M., 2011.

CHAPTER I Chapter I Political reforms

in Japan 40-50 years. …………. pp. 3-16

CHAPTER II Chapter II LDP formation and folding

modern political system. ……… pp. 17-28

Conclusion…………………………………………………….. pp. 29-30

List of used literature…………………………. page 31

Introduction

Over the past hundred years, Japan has invariably attracted the attention of researchers and observers from the rest of the world, trying to figure out the “mysteries” of the very extraordinary development of the Land of the Rising Sun. In the last century, the main question was: how did this small and essentially underdeveloped island country manage to avoid the fate of the vast majority of Asian countries? Then how was it able, in a historically short time, to achieve significant success in modernizing the economy and society, securing a place for itself among the strongest countries in the world and taking up arms against the leading world powers, taking part in attempts to redistribute it again?

A particularly strong surge of interest in Japan was caused by the phenomenon of its almost fantastic revival after a crushing defeat in the Second World War, as a result of which the country by the beginning of the 21st century turned into one of the world leaders, one of the locomotives of the world economy.

The political history of Japan is a process that is far from straightforward, involving inhibition and even rollback of the development of democratic institutions, principles and norms, and the accumulation of democratic practice.

The evolution of the political system in Japan proceeded as an analogue of the same process in other countries, not only indirectly perceiving leading options and development trends from there, but also sometimes experiencing voluntary or forced influence - and direct influence, of course, national specifics were preserved in any case.

The purpose of this work is to study the political development of Japan in the second half of the 20th century, to note the characteristic features of this development, and to evaluate the political transformations in Japan at the stage under study.

The objectives of the work are: consideration of political transformations in Japan at different stages, an attempt to assess the ongoing reforms, study of the existing political system of the country, as well as determining the nature of political power and its implementation in Japanese society. Note the specificity and originality of Japan in its political development.

The historiography of this issue is presented in the works of Verbitsky S.I.¹, Eremin V.N.², Makarov A.A.³; it should be noted the collective monograph of leading Russian Japanese scholars, published relatively recently (1999)⁴, it is in these works that detailed The issue under study in Japanese political history is covered. The Japanese Constitution of 1947 will be considered as the main source.⁵ The work is divided into two chapters. The first chapter (“Political reforms of the 40-50s”) will discuss the post-war reforms carried out under the conditions of occupation by the US administration. Also subject to study is the new Constitution of Japan of 1947, as the basic law of the country, which determined its further development. The second chapter (“Education of the LDP and the formation of the modern political system”) will study the political development of Japan in the 50-60s. Because It was during this period that the mechanism of political power was formed, which functions until the present day. In particular, the formation of the LDP and the phenomenon of its long stay in power, the features of the political system of Japan formed as a result of the activities of the LDP as the ruling party, starting in 1955.

¹ Verbitsky S.I. Japan on the threshold of the 21st century - M.: Knowledge, 1988

² Eremin V.N. The political system of modern Japanese society is

M.: Nauka, 1992

³ Makarov A.A. Political power in Japan - M.: Nauka, 1988

⁴Collective monograph Japan myths and reality - M.: Vostochnaya

literature RAS, 1999

⁵ Constitution of Japan 1947 // Reader on modern history,

volume 3 - M.: Publishing house of socio-economic literature, 1961 p.

Chapter I Political reforms in Japan 40-50 years

The defeat in World War II significantly undermined the domestic political and economic positions of Japan's ruling circles. The uniqueness of the occupation stage in the post-war history of Japan lies in the fact that, although the supreme power in the country was in the hands of the American occupation army, acting on behalf of the Allied powers, the United States exercised this power not directly, but through the Japanese government, which reflected the interests of the ruling classes.

The stage of the occupation of Japan was not unambiguous in its content. The main feature of the periods of occupation is that the United States, while pursuing its own goals regarding Japan, still to some extent considered itself bound by the Potsdam Declaration of the Allied Powers of July 26, 1945.

Which spoke of the need to eradicate militarism in Japan forever, remove obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies in the Japanese people, establish freedom of speech, religion and thought, and respect basic human rights.

Victory over militaristic Japan is an integral part of the victory of the Allied powers in the war against the Nazi coalition. Therefore, the United States could not openly immediately after the surrender of Japan abandon the Potsdam Declaration, which was the general program of the Allied powers regarding Japan. In addition, they were forced to reckon with the post-war rise of the Japanese people for a peaceful and democratic path to the country's development.

At the same time, the American authorities sought to take advantage of the victory to pursue a line of demilitarization of Japan and weaken its economic power.

During the occupation, the United States issued a number of directives on the demilitarization and democratization of Japan in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration and decisions of the Far Eastern Commission, consisting of representatives of 11 countries: the USA, USSR, England, China, France, Holland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and the Philippines .

The influence of the Far Eastern Commission on the US occupation policy in Japan was not decisive. Its decisions, adopted, as a rule, with great delay, were carried out through the corresponding orders of the American government, sent to the commander-in-chief of the occupation forces, General MacArthur. Moreover, the American government could independently send him so-called “temporary directives.” At the same time, without the consent of the United States, the Far Eastern Commission could not hold a single event in Japan.

At the same time, the United States has appropriated a number of government functions to itself. They completely took control of the area of ​​finance and foreign trade, put under control all the organs of justice, police power, drawing up the state budget, and limited the legislative power of parliament.

In the field of diplomacy, the Japanese government was deprived of the right to establish and maintain direct communication with other countries. All functions of Japanese foreign policy were in the hands of the occupation authorities or could only be carried out through them. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan existed, it did not play any independent role during the occupation. All his foreign policy functions boiled down to maintaining communications between the government and the headquarters of the occupation forces.

Immediately after the surrender of Japan, the United States took a number of measures aimed at easing restrictions on bourgeois-democratic rights and political activity. The dissolution of ultranationalist societies and secret right-wing organizations was officially announced. On October 11, 1945, MacArthur sent a directive to the Japanese government to carry out five major reforms - giving workers the right not to organize trade unions, democratizing the education system, eliminating absolutism, equalizing women's rights and democratizing the economy. In November, directives followed to freeze the property of the parent holding companies (zaibatsu), the imperial house and the dissolution of the zaibatsu. In December, MacArthur's memorandum on land reform and a decree on the separation of Shinto from the state were published. In order to weaken the cult of the emperor, on January 1, 1946, he publicly renounced the myth of the divine origin of the ruling dynasty.

Thus, the establishment of the so-called indirect control of Japan, in fact the transfer to the Japanese government of a number of powers to implement the US occupation policy, meant that the leading role in the post-war structure of Japan was recognized not by democratic forces, but by the ruling class. Conservative forces, taking advantage of the power presented to them, sought to preserve the old political system, and above all the imperial system, to the maximum extent possible.¹

¹ History of Japan 1945-1975 - M.: Nauka, 1978, p. 16

All political parties were dissolved during the war and a single political organization was created in their place - the Greater Japan Political Association. Immediately after the surrender of Japan, old parties began to be restored and new parties of various directions began to emerge.

In November 1945, the founding congress proclaimed the creation of the Japanese Socialist Party (JSP) by uniting followers of various pre-war social democratic parties and groups dissolved along with the trade unions in 1940. It included social democrats of all shades - from the extreme right to leftist socialists who advocated unity with the Japanese Communist Party. Right-wing socialists played a leading role in the formation of the SPJ.

Chapter 1. The Constitution of 1889 and changes in the political system

Japan at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries.

§1 Political situation in Japan in the 70-80s. XIX centuries

Reasons for adopting the constitution.

§2 The process of developing a constitution.

§4 The Rescript on Education as the “second constitution.”

§5 The genro institution and its political role.

Chapter 2. Parties and Parliament.

§ 1 Parties during the “movement for freedom and people's rights”

§2 Evolution of political parties after the opening

Parliament.

§3 Parliament and its activities.

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Internal political development of Japan at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century”

Currently, the party system in Japan is being reorganized, and many aspects related to the specifics of Japanese political parties are coming to the fore. They can only be understood by examining the process of formation of political parties in the context of a specific political culture. Such an aspect as the mechanism of connection between parties and the bureaucracy also needs further study, and here it is necessary to turn to tradition.

Since 1993, Japan has been actively redividing the political space, the goal of which is to choose an optimal sustainable political course, and the formation of a new political system is underway. The question of the formation of a two-party system in Japan is acute: the American model is mentioned as a possible option, when competition for power takes place between two large political parties that are similar in worldview and social orientation. However, its formation faces a number of obstacles. This serves as an incentive to study the prototype of the two-party system, which arose in Japan at the beginning of the 20th century. and was associated with the existence of the transfer of power from the Saionji offices to the Katsura (Kei-en system).

From time to time, the question arises in Japanese society about whether the 1947 constitution should be revised, since it was “imposed” on the Japanese from outside. Recently, interest in the first constitution of 1889 has been increasing, but inadequate assessments are often given and its “democratic potential” is exaggerated.

In modern Japan, the executive branch is stronger than representative institutions. The government has a number of advantages over legislators that make it less susceptible to the influence of public opinion and the elected body. In this regard, the first steps of the Meiji leaders towards creating a strong bureaucratic apparatus are of considerable interest.

Additional interest in the internal political development of Japan is given by the events in Russia of the last decade associated with the transition from an authoritarian society with a monoparty system to a pluralistic democratic society in which many political parties operate. Despite the enormous differences between Japan at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. and Russia at the end of the 20th century, there are a number of processes and phenomena that are similar to each other. These are, in particular, the features of the formation of political parties, the transformation of movement parties into parliamentary parties, the connection of political parties with the ruling bureaucracy, the creation of pro-government parties through bureaucratic intervention not only in party building, but also in the electoral process, the search by political parties for an adequate social base. All this makes us turn to the Japanese experience of political development of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In domestic Japanese studies, subjects related to the study of the development of the political system of Japan at the turn of the century, namely: the adoption of the Meiji Constitution, the creation of a new political system on its basis, the formation of the first parties, the formation of the party system and the beginning of parliamentary activity, were considered within the framework of general works on new history, but never became the object of independent research.

In the 20s, the largest authority in the field of Japanese studies, N. Conrad, in his early work1, assessed the entire Meiji era as an era of political hegemony of the “third estate,” thereby overestimating the level of political development of the Japanese bourgeoisie, considering it, by analogy with the European, united, active, formed force. The scientist explained the establishment of the political dominance of the bourgeoisie by the natural course of historical evolution, which is more a hypothetical statement than the result of historical analysis, not to mention the need to take into account national specifics.

This specificity was noted in the works of K.A. Kharnsky2 and E.M. Zhukov, written from the perspective of Marxist historicism. Kharnsky's work is original in that it analyzes the text of the constitution from the point of view of compliance (or non-compliance) with established practices, and assessments of current parties are given based on the political realities of the early 20th century.

In the 30s A milestone in the development of Soviet Japanese studies was the work of E.M. Zhukov “History of Japan”3, in which a lot of space is devoted to the analysis of the constitutional system of Japan. The work contains a number of apt remarks about the political confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy, the difference between parties on the issue of the source of power, the lack of political continuity of parliamentary parties with the parties of the “movement for freedom and people's rights.” Unfortunately, these comments were not developed and were not taken into account in further studies.

In the 40-50s. questions of the evolution of Japan's political system were covered by the famous Japanese scholar H.T. Eidus. His works4 can hardly be called innovative, since they contain a lot of schematism, most of his statements are not supported by analysis, and the reliability of the facts presented is difficult to verify due to the lack of references to primary sources. The works are oversaturated with such definitions as “landowner-bourgeois opposition”, “ruling bourgeois-landowner bloc”, which often contain contradictions and

1 Konrad N.I. Japan. People and state. - Petrograd, 1923.

2 Kharnsky K.A. Japan in the past and present. - Vladivostok, 1927.

3 Zhukov E.M. History of Japan. - M., 1939.

4 Eidus H.T. Japan from the first to the second world war. - M., 1946. Eidus H.T. Japan. Transcript of a public lecture from the series “Political Map of the World.” - M., 1948. Eidus H.T. Essays on the modern and contemporary history of Japan. - M., 1955. Eidus H.T. History of Japan from ancient times to the present day. - M., 1968. thereby making it difficult to understand the processes described. As a result, the essence and characteristics of political processes remain behind the scenes; they are replaced by political cliches that do not fit well into the historical picture of Japan’s past. Works by H.T. Eidus are essentially either textbooks or texts of public lectures, with a pronounced ideological orientation, and not research in the full sense of the word.

The collective monograph of Soviet historians, “Essays on the New History of Japan”5, reflected a certain stage in the development of domestic Japanese studies. The assessments and provisions of this work became generally accepted for a long time and were included in educational literature on regional studies6 and textbooks on the history of state and law7. However, after more than four decades, the interpretation of many events is clearly outdated theoretically and factually.

One of the options for a different approach to the study of political processes in Japan at the turn of the century was presented in the monograph by I.Ya. Poor8. This author's research is distinguished by a good knowledge of the material and the use of a wide range of sources, but some conclusions seem exaggerated and insufficiently substantiated. This study was built on the basis of Lenin's theory of imperialism, which left its mark on the characteristics of political institutions. AND I. The poor man proceeds from Lenin’s formulation that during the period of imperialism, monopolies have a huge influence on political life, “regardless of the political system.” Moreover, the specifics of Japan's political system are recognized by historians as relics, and therefore political processes in Japan at the turn of the century are presented schematically, without taking into account the influence of political culture.

5 Essays on the modern history of Japan (1640-1917). -M., 1958.

6 Kuznetsov Yu.D., Navlitskaya G.B., Syritsyn I.M. History of Japan - M., 1988.

7 General history of state and law / Ed. Chernilovsky. - M., 1992.

8 Bednyak I.Ya. Japan during the transition to imperialism. - M., 1962.

It should be noted that the formation of the party system in the Meiji era was studied one-sidedly, since domestic Japanese studies were characterized by a pronounced bias towards studying the history of working-class parties9. There are no monographs devoted to parties of other types.

In the 80-90s. XX century Special studies appeared in which, in the course of the main plot, assessments were made of significant events in the political history of Japan. Original ideas regarding the Meiji Constitution adopted in 1889 were expressed in his work by G. Svetlov10, calling it “an example of irrational divine law.” Moving away from generally accepted assessments of the reactionary nature and analogy of the Japanese constitution with the Prussian one, the historian moved on to clarify the hidden mechanisms of the emperor’s power, which are embedded in the basic law. G. Svetlov initiated the study of the Japanese constitution of 1889 in the context of the historical tradition of Japan and the evolution of its specific political institutions. This approach was continued in the work of T.G. Sila-Novitskaya11.

At the turn of the 1980-90s, the insufficiency of the formational approach for studying socio-political changes in the countries of the East, including Japan, became most obvious. Therefore, there was a need to supplement it with modern concepts of social development, such as the theory of ethnogenesis by L.N. Gumilyov and the theory of modernization, which is actively being developed in Western research. The first attempt to revise the established concept of Japanese history after Meiji Ishin in domestic historiography was made by E.V. Molodyakova and S.B. Markarian12. The work is a collection

9 Goldberg D.I. Essay on the history of the labor and socialist movement in Japan in 1868-1908. - M., 1976. Kovalenko I.I. Communist Party of Japan. Essays on history - M., 1987. Senatorov A.I. Sen Katayama: a scientific biography. - M.: Nauka, 1988.

10 Svetlov G. The Path of the Gods: Shinto in the History of Japan. - M., 1985.

11 Sila-Novitskaya T.G. The cult of the emperor in Japan: myths, history, doctrines, politics. - M., 1990.

12 Molodyakova E.V. Markarian S.B. Japanese Society: A Book of Changes. - M., 1996. different theoretical approaches, which makes the coverage of various aspects unequal, at the same time it also contains a number of noteworthy observations and conclusions.

It is necessary to mention works that highlight certain aspects of the cultural modernization of Japan13, as well as a number of articles containing non-traditional assessments of the political development of Japan at the turn of the century14.

Taking into account the above, it should be noted that both factually and conceptually, domestic Japanese studies in relation to the study of political processes of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. remained at the level of works published in the 50-60s. with their characteristic schematism, straightforwardness and ideological preoccupation.

The research of Japanese historians is distinguished by a good knowledge of historical material and the use of a wide range of sources.

The process of creating the constitution was chronologically restored and described in detail in the works of such Japanese researchers as Inada, Osatake, Kobayakawa, Ishii15. Analysis of the constitution primarily as a legal document was undertaken in the works of Nakano Tomio, Fujii Shinichi and Matsunami16. Tomio Nakano undertook a comparative analysis of the Meiji Constitution with the constitutions of European countries. The last two authors differ in that they evaluate the constitution according to democratic

13 Grisheleva L.D., Chegodar N.I. Japanese culture of modern times. - M., 1998. Molodyakov V.E. Image of Japan. - M., 1996. Molodyakov V.E. Conservative revolution in Japan. - M., 1999.

14 Zagorsky A.V. The transition from totalitarianism to democracy: the Japanese experience (1945-1950) // Japan. Faces of the country at different times. - M, 1994. Zagorsky A.V. General theory of democracy, East Asian model and Japanese experience // Japan and global problems of humanity. - M., 1999. Eremin V. Japanese democracy as an original product of world political civilization // Japan and global problems of humanity. - M., 1999. Molodyakov V.E. Three internationalizations of Japan // Japan and global problems of humanity. - M., 1999. Molodyakov V.E. "Meiji Ishin" - conservative revolution. - Problems of the Far East. 1993, no. 6.

15 Inada M. Meiji kempo seiritsushi (History of the creation of the Meiji Constitution). - Tokyo, 1962. Osatake Takeshi. Nihon Kenseishi Taiko (Main Stages of Constitutional Government in Japan). - Tokyo, 1939. Kobayakawa. Meiji hoseishiron (On the history of legislation of the Meiji era). - Tokyo, 1940. Ishii T. Meiji bunkashi: hoseihen (Cultural history of the Meiji era: changes in legislation). - Tokyo, 1954. Kaneko Kentaro. Kempo seitei to obezin no hyoron (The formation of the constitution and its assessment in Western public opinion). -Tokyo, 1939. Suzuki K. Kempo seitei (Establishment of the Constitution). - Tokyo, 1942.

16 Nakano Tomio. The ordinance power of the Japanese Emperor. - Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins press, 1923. Fujii Shinichi. The Essentials of Japanese Constitutional Law. - Tokyo, 1939. Matsunami N. The Constitution of Japan. -Tokyo, 1930. standards, and also convey the general atmosphere of the last years of the Meiji Constitution. Fujii's work is also valuable because it contains a preface written by Kaneko Kentaro, one of the authors of the constitution, who, at the request of Ito Hirobumi, went to 1889-1890. to Europe in order to collect comments and assessments of the first Japanese constitution from European and American jurists. Among the scientific works that emphasize the democratic elements in the Meiji Constitution, one can highlight Minobe Tatsukichi's work “Basic Elements of Constitutional Law”17. The theory of the autocratic school is reflected in Uesugi Shinkichi's study “Interpretation of the Constitution”18.

It is also necessary to highlight a collection of articles on the formation of the legal basis of the new political regime19. In relation to our topic, it should be noted in the collection of articles by Takayanagi Kenzo and Miyazawa Toshiyoshi, which analyze the principles laid down in the constitution, and also present assessments of this document by contemporaries.

A special publication20 of the Museum of the House of Representatives, prepared with the participation of Osatake Takeki, who is recognized as the founder of such an academic discipline as “The History of Constitutionalism in Japan,” is dedicated to the history of the formation of the parliamentary system in Japan. This work also included an earlier joint publication of the Houses of Diet, which outlined the 70-year history of Japanese parliamentarism21.

Japanese historians, unlike Western scientists, rarely write general works, but in their studies they usually emphasize the influence of traditional behavior on the functioning of the political system

17 Minobe T. Kempo Satsuyo (Basic Provisions of the Constitution). - Tokyo, 1923.

18 Uesugi S. Kempo jitsugi (Interpretation of the Constitution). - Tokyo, 1914.

19 The Japanese Legal system //Ed. by Hideo Tanaka. - Tokyo, 1991.

20 History of Constitutionalism in Japan/House of Representatives. - Tokyo, 1987.

21 Gikai-Seido 70-nashi (70 years of parliamentarism). - Tokyo, 1961.

Such an important aspect of the political development of Japan, as the role and position of the emperor in the political structure created with the adoption of the constitution, is given a lot of space in the works of Umegaki Michio24. The historian also touched upon the problem of the existence of extra-constitutional channels of power and their active influence on the political process. This aspect is of particular importance when characterizing the political system of Japan, assessing the degree of development of constitutional principles and the compliance of political practice with the basic law of the country. Modern approaches to the study of the imperial system of modern Japan are reflected in the studies of Suzuki Masayuki and Mizubayashi Takeshi25.

Recent works by Japanese historians on political history confirm the general desire to identify the features of the political process in Japan during the modernization of Japanese society. An attempt to study the political society of Japan, based on the “theory of elites” and using the concepts of “ruling elite” (V. Pareto) and “political class” (G. Mosca), was made in his work by Masaaki Takane26. The study of Kyogoku Junichi indicates that political consciousness has become a new aspect in the study of Japanese political history27. Another

22 Ike Nobutaka. Japanese Politics. - N.Y., 1957. Yanaga Chitoshi. Japanese People and Politics. - N.Y., 1962. Tsuneishi W.M. Japanese political style. An introduction to the Government and Politics of Modern Japan. - N.Y., London, 1966. Ishida Takeshi. Japanese political culture. - New Brunswick, London, 1983.

23 Nakamura Kikuo. Gendai Seiji no jittai (The State of Modern Politics). - Tokyo, 1958. Oka Yoshitake. Gendai Nihon no seiji katei (Political processes in modern Japan). - Tokyo, 1958.

24 Umegaki Michio. After the restoration: The beginning of Japan's modern state. - N.Y.; L.: New York univ. press, 1988.

25 Suzuki Masayuki. Kindai tennosei no shihai chitsujo (The system of imperial government in Japan in modern and modern times). - Tokyo, 1986. Mizubayashi Takeshi. A critical review of studies of the early modern emperor system. - Tokyo, 1989.

26 Masaaki Takane. The political elite in Japan. - Tokuo, 1980.

27 Kyogoku Junichi. Seiji isiki no bunseki (Analysis of political consciousness in Japan). - Tokyo, 1987. Japanese historian, H. Fukui, in his work28 raised the question of the relationship between electoral legislation and the party system. Fukutake Tadashi gave an analysis of the social stratification of Japan in the 19th and 20th centuries29.

Most of the works of Japanese historians reflect the eventual side of the issue without analyzing socio-political changes and the conceptual basis of the study. Many works, built on a solid source base, lack a high level of generalization. From this series, it is worth highlighting the works of two historians with different conceptual approaches to covering political processes in Japan.

The first, Goto Yasushi, builds his research30 on Marxist theory and argues that as capitalism developed in accordance with class changes, the “absolutist imperial system” (as the historian defined the political system of Japan that was established after the Meiji Restoration) underwent major changes.

Another major Japanese specialist in the field of political history of Japan, Masumi Junnosuke, in his research proceeds from the principle of the staged development of political institutions. In a multi-volume monograph31, he attempted to compare the main stages in the development of the system of political parties in the most developed countries of Western Europe with a similar process in Japan. At the same time, he came to the conclusion that the history of Japanese parliamentarism and, accordingly, political parties of the parliamentary type went through the following stages of its development. The first stage is from 1890 to 1900, from the convening of the first parliament to the formation of the Seiyukai Party (Society of Friends of Politics), the largest bourgeois party that set the tone in the political life of the country. This stage in development

28 Japan and the World. Essays in Japanese history and politics //Ed. by C.L. Bernstein, Haruhiro Fukui. - Oxford, Mcmillan press, 1988.

29 Fukutake Tadashi. The Japanese Social stmture. Its Evolution in the Modern century. - Tokyo, 1989.

30 Koza Nihonshi (Lecture course on the history of Japan). - Tokyo, 1970, vol. IX.

31 Masumi Junnosuke. Nihon seijishi (Masumi Junnosuke. Political history of Japan). - Tokyo: Todai Shuppansya. - 1988, 4 volumes of Japanese parliamentarism and political parties, the Japanese researcher calls “a period of horizontal confrontation between the government and parties and temporary compromise”32. The second stage is from 1900 to 1912. Its boundaries, according to the concept of Masumi Junnosuke, are the creation of the seiyukai party in 1900 and the formation of the so-called Katsura-Saionji system of political government. The Japanese researcher believes that the dominant feature of this period was that “the vertical division of the political world spread to all spheres and developed”33. The third stage in the evolution of political parties in Japan occurred in the period 1913-1932. From the point of view of Masumi Junnosuke, its characteristic features are the consolidation of non-Seiyukai forces”, the emergence of a new “unification of political parties based on the vertical division of the political world” and “the rule of seiyukai-minseito political parties”34 (party of democratic politics). The fourth stage of development of the party system in Japan lasted from 1932 to 1945, “from the decline of political parties to the creation of a totalitarian system and defeat in the war”35. Ultimately, Masumi Junnosuke comes to the conclusion that the system of Japanese parliamentarism and parliamentary political parties, with a significant delay, repeats similar stages in the development of these phenomena in developed European countries.

The scientist bases his analysis of the development of the system of political parties on the close connection between the processes of socio-economic development, the evolution of the social structure of Japanese society with the evolution of parliamentarism and political parties. It seems that this analysis needs to be clarified taking into account such an important factor in the political life of any society as political culture, which in Japan is very unique

32 Masumi Junnosuke. Decree op. P. 170.

34 Ibid. P.171.

35 Ibid. P. 172. compared with European countries. Japanese political culture had a different civilizational basis and a different political tradition.

In Western historiography, the study of political processes in the Meiji era reveals a significant diversity of opinions and concepts of authors, a wide range of problems they raise. The first attempts to present the political development of Japan after the introduction of the constitution were made by English historians W. McGovern36, Morgan Young37 and G. Gauvin38 in the 20s. For a long time, G. Quigley’s book “New Japan” remained an authoritative study for Western Japanese scholars. Government and politics"39. Domestic historians are better known for the early translated work of G. Quigley “The Government and Political Life of Japan”40.

The most fundamental in covering the process of creating a constitution remain the works of such Western historians as Akita, Beckman, Miller, Seaman41. Akita identifies two lines of confrontation in the government on the issue of establishing constitutional rule: the Yamagata group, which ignored political, social and economic changes in the country and sought external expansion, strengthening its own power by maintaining the status quo, and the Ito group, which recognized the need for political, social and ideological transformations in accordance with changing realities.

There is still no comprehensive study of the party system of Japan during the Meiji era, as was done for the Taisho era (1911-1926) by Peter

36 MacGovern W. M. Modern Japan. Its political, military, industrial organization. - London, 1920.

37 Morgan Young. Japan under Taisho Tenno, 1912-1926. - London, 1928.

38 Gowen Herbert H. An outline history of Japan. - London, 1928.

39 H. Quigley, J. E. Turner. The New Japan. Government and Politics. - Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1956.

40 G. Quigley. Government and political life of Japan. - M., 1934.

41 Akita G. Foundation of constitutional government in Modern Japan, 1868-1900. - Cambridge, Harvard univ. press, 1967. Beckmann G. The Making of the Meiji Constitution. - Lawrence, 1957. Miller F. Minobe Tatsukichi. - Berkeley, 1965. Siemes J. Hermann Roessler's Commentaries on the Meiji Constitution. Monumenta Nipponica, xvii. - L., 1962, 1-66.

Duyus42. However, a brief analysis of the recent evolution of parties in the decade preceding the Taisho era contains a number of valuable observations and characteristics. The long-standing but still important book by Robert Scalapino43 also contains a brief but quite informative outline of the history of political parties and organizations in Japan. His next work, in collaboration with Masumi Junnosuke44, was enriched both in factual terms and in terms of conceptual generalizations.

Representatives of the so-called “modernization theory” made a special contribution to the study of the political history of Japan during the Meiji era: Hall45, Wu Ord46, Jansen47, Craig and Reischauer48. Under their leadership, a number of collections have been published, which present research on the political, economic, and social development of Japan in modern times49. The central topic of research is the role of modernization in the transformation of Japanese society, determining the level of modernity in Japan. Unlike Japanese historians, American scientists remove value views from the term “modern”. Their work is based on the theory of political modernization, according to which the general direction of the historical process is the establishment of a Western-style society, including Western democratic institutions. As for Japan, a direct reception of Western democracy is impossible here.

Among the studies of Western Japanese scholars, one can highlight the fundamental monographic works of the English historian W. Beasley50,

42 Duus Peter. Party rivalry and political change in Taisho Japan. - Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

43 Scalapino R.A. Democracy and the Party Movement in Prewar Japan. - Berkeley, 1953.

44 Scalapino A. R., Masumi J. Parties and Politics in Contemporary Japan. - Berkeley: Univ. of California press, 1962.

45 Hall J.W. A Monarch for Modern Japan //Political Development in Modern Japan - Princeton: Princeton Univ. press, 1968. Hall J.W. Japan: From prehistory to modern times. - N.Y. 1993.

46 Ward R.E. Political Modernization and Political Culture in Japan // Political Modernization. Ed. by Welch E.C. -Belmont, California, 1971. Ward Robert E. Japan's political system. -Englewood Cliffs N.Y., 1979.

47 Jansen B.M. Japan and its World: two centuries of change. - Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1980.

48 Reischauer E.O., Craig A.M. Japan: Tradition & transformation.- Sydney, Allen&Unwin, press, 1989.

49 Changing Japanese Attitudes Toward Modernization. - Princeton, N.Y., 1965. Political Development in Modern Japan / Ed. by Ward R.E. - Princeton:Princeton Univ. Press, 1968.

50 Beasley W.G. The Japanese Imperialism. 1894-1945. - Oxford. Clarendon press, 1987. Beasley W. G. The rise of Modern Japan. - N.Y., Martin press, 1990. as well as collective publications on key issues in the political history of Japan51. The concept of the formation of a bureaucratic state in Japan, starting from the Meiji era, is developed by historians Silberman52, Fuster and Gordon53. Within the framework of the “theory of elites,” the work of B. Koch54 was carried out, who believes that the restoration in Japan took place in the form of a change of elites.

Recently, in Western historiography, such topics as the relationship between the state and the intellectual elite (Barshey A.)55, the state and Shinto (X. Hardacre)56 have been developed as independent subjects. A comparative analysis of the political systems of Japan and England, as well as the political culture of these countries, was undertaken in their studies by English Japanese scholars Martin57, Stronach, Vestny58 and Voronof59.

A review of the works of domestic and foreign Japanese scholars shows that a number of important aspects of the political development of Japan at the turn of the century still remain outside the scope of researchers. By writing this work, the author hopes to fill this gap and make a certain contribution to the study of the problems of the formation of the constitutional system in Japan.

51 Modern Japanese leadership.Transition and Change. - Tuccson(Arizona), 1966. Conflict in modern Japanese history /Ed. by Tetsuo Najita and J.Victor Koschmann. - Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1982.

52 Silberman B., Harootunian H.D. Japan in Crisis: .Essays on Taisho Democracy. - Princeton: Princeton Univ. press, 1975. Silberman B. The Beurocratic State. - N.Y., 1992.

53 Fewster S., Cordon T. Japan from shogun to superstate. - Norrbury, 1988.

54 Koh B.C. The bureaucratic state in Japan: the problem of authority and success // Conflict in modern Japanese history / Ed. by Tetsuo Najita and J.Victor Koschmann. - Princeton, N.J., Princeton Univ. Press, 1982.

55 Barshay Andrew. State and intellectual in Imperial Japan. - Berkeley, 1988.

56 Hardacre Helen. Shinto and the state, 1868-1988. - Princeton (N.J.):, Princeton univ. Press, 1989.

57 Martin C.H., Stronach B. Politics Fast and West. A comparison of Japan and British political culture - Armonk (N.Y), L., 1992.

58 Westney D.E. Imitation and innovation. The transfer of western organization. - Cambridge, 1987.

59 Woronoff J. Politics the Japanese way. - Basington, London, 1986.

Of great value for this study is the four-volume publication “Japan of the Meiji Era in Documents”60, which includes both official documentation and testimonies of contemporaries. The main value of the publication is the publication of a unique corpus of documents and materials. Four volumes contain sources of various genres: legislative acts, imperial decrees (on the creation of genro-in, the cabinet of ministers, the Privy Council, the opening of parliament, etc.), the text of the Constitution and comments to it, the Law on the Imperial House, the Law on the Imperial parliament, the Law on Elections to the Lower House, the Law on Finance, instructions and orders to ministers, speeches of government representatives in the lower house of parliament, speeches and statements by leaders of political parties. These materials characterize the main directions of the strategy of socio-economic and political development, proposed changes, including in the field of public administration. They provide comprehensive information about the formation of the mechanism of power and the activities of political parties. Equipped with detailed comments, this publication covers the period from 1867 to 1912. and is the most complete collection of documents of this kind.

A less voluminous, but no less valuable body of materials of a similar nature contains the collection “The Japanese on Japan,” compiled by the Japanese government in 1904 at the request of the Englishman A. Stead and translated by him into European languages61. There is also a Russian translation from 190662, which has not yet come into the orbit of research by Russian historians. The collection contains all the basic laws of the Meiji era, the emperor's speeches preceding the publication of the most important legislative acts, the documents themselves, comments by the compilers of these documents, analytical articles authored by ministers and other prominent figures of that era.

60 The Meiji Japan through contemporary sources. - Tokyo, 1969, IV volume.

61 Japan by the Japanese. A survey by its highest authorities /Ed. by A. Stead. - London, Alinemann, 1904.

62 Japanese about Japan /Under. ed. A. Stead. - St. Petersburg, 1906.

However, it is necessary to make allowance for the fact that the selection of documents and articles by Meiji era statesmen in this collection is largely biased, as it was intended to present to European countries a showcase of Japanese society - “the progress achieved under the constitution.”

Rich factual material is contained in the collection “Fifty Years of New Japan”63 prepared by Okuma Shigenobu, the party leader and an active participant in the political events of the Meiji era. In addition to official documents, it contains speeches, speeches and statements of political and public figures.

When analyzing the constitution, we had at our disposal five texts of the constitution, published in different editions64 in different languages, which provided fertile material for comparison and made it possible to assess their authenticity.

Among the reliable sources, although not fundamentally important for our research, we should mention the official biography of Saionji Kimmochi65 and popular biographies of Ito Hirobumi66, Yamagata Aritomo67, Okuma Shigenobu68, Itagaki Taisuke, Katsura Taro, Kono Hironaka69. A rich material that presented a lively and vivid picture of the life of Japanese society in the 70s. XIX century, contains the work of a contemporary of those events L.I. Mechnikova70.

The main goal of the proposed study is to reconstruct the political processes that determined the political development of Japan at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. In accordance with it, as problems, the solution

63 Fifty years of New Japan /Ed. by Okuma Shigenobu. - Tokyo, 1909. Ito Hirobumi. Some Reminiscences of the Grant of the New Constitution //Fifty Years of New Japan. - New York: Dutton, 1909.

64 The Meiji Japan through contemporary sources. - Tokyo, 1969, vol.1. - P. 93- 101. The Japanese Legal System. /Ed. by Hideo Tanaka. - Tokyo, 1991. - P. 16-24. Fifty yaers of New Japan/Ed. by Okuma Shigenobu. - Tokyo, 1909. - P. 579-592. Japanese people about Japan. - St. Petersburg, 1906. - P. 330-335. Durdenevsky B.N., Lundshuveit E.F. Constitutions of the East. Leningrad, 1926. - pp. 166-169.

65 Takekoshi Yosaburo. Prince Saionji. - Kyoto, Ritsumeikan University, 1933.

66 Scherer James. Three Meiji leaders: Ito, Togo, Nogi. - Tokyo, Hokuseido press, 1936.

67 Hackett Roger. Yamagata Aritomo in the rise of modern Japan 1838-1922. - Cambridge, Harvard univ. Press, 1971.

68 Oka Yoshitake. Five political leaders of Modern Japan. - Tokyo, 1986.

69 Kono Banshuden (Biography of Kono Hironaka). - Tokyo, 1924. which follows from a deep analysis and generalization of specific historical material, the dissertation poses the following: analyze the formation of the constitutional system; trace the evolution of the party system; show the features of the parliamentary mechanism; determine the nature of the political system of Japan at the beginning of the 20th century; identify the features of the political culture of Japanese society.

The object of our research was Japanese society of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with a rather amorphous social structure, formed in the process of economic and political modernization.

The subject of the study is the evolution of the political system of Japan at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries.

The chronological scope of this work covers the period from the issuance of the imperial decree on the writing of the constitution, which marked the beginning of constitutional reforms, until the end of the Meiji era.

The theoretical basis of this study was the theory of modernization, most comprehensively developed by the Israeli scientist Sh. Eisenstadt. One of his last theoretical works, “Revolution and Transformations of Societies,”71 with the characteristic subtitle “Comparative Study of Civilizations,” was translated into Russian. S. Eisenstadt gave a comparative analysis of the political processes of modernization in Japan and Western countries in order to identify convergent trends in their development and determine the role of the “civilizational” (cultural) factor in the uniqueness of the political orientations chosen by different societies72.

70 Mechnikov L.I. Memories of two years of service in Japan. - Vladivostok, Far Eastern State University Publishing House, 1992.

71 Eisenstadt S. Revolution and transformation of societies. - M: Aspect press. - 1999.

72 Eisenstadt S.N. Convergence of modern societies: prerequisites and boundaries. Using the example of Japan // Japan in comparative sociocultural studies. - M.: INION RAS, 1990.

His following characteristic of Japanese society is of great importance: “The most important difference between the European and Japanese experience was manifested in the nature of the coalitions that carried out modernization changes in these societies”73.

Let us also note an important general theoretical study by domestic scientists - the collective monograph “The Evolution of Eastern Societies”74. The idea of ​​“synthesis” outlined in this book gave a powerful impetus for a theoretical rethinking of the civilizational aspect of the development of societies making the transition from traditionality to modernity. The concept of synthesis helps to reveal the formational ambiguity of modernization processes in the countries of the East, the multidirectionality of social forces involved in this process.

When writing the work, the author relied on the research in the field of political theory that was carried out by major domestic political scientists F.M. Burlatsky and A.A. Galkin and were summarized by them in the work “Modern Leviathan: Essays on the Political Sociology of Capitalism”75. Within the framework of this work, issues related to the patterns of functioning and development of the political system in capitalist countries are examined. Based on empirical material, it analyzes the current stage of development of the political system of capitalism, the processes of formation of the social components of political power, the role of culture in determining the political consciousness and behavior of various mass groups of the population.

At present, hardly anyone doubts that when analyzing political processes it is necessary to take into account the impact of political culture. Recently in English-language literature

73 Eisenstadt S. Revolution and transformation of societies. - M: Aspect press. - 1999. - P. 201.

74 Evolution of Eastern societies: synthesis of traditional and modern. - M., 1984.

75 Burlatsky F.M., Galkin A.A. Modern Leviathan. - M., 1985. This concept is being actively developed, various options for defining political culture are proposed.

The most complete definition of political culture is given by S. Verba: “The political culture of a society is a system of empirical beliefs, polysemantic symbols and values ​​that define the framework within which political activity is carried out. These beliefs can be different: ideas about what a real political process is, about what goal should be achieved in the political process. These beliefs may have important emotional implications. Political culture forms an important link between political events and the behavior of individuals, and also regulates the direction in which formal institutions operate."76

English political scientist Rose emphasizes that political culture refers to elusive but important values, beliefs, and feelings that influence support for power and agreement with basic political norms77. Another researcher, Kavanagh, believes that political culture already contains values, beliefs and feelings,

78 that determine political behavior.

According to Alan Marsh, the study of political culture is the study of how social relationships and values ​​determine the political behavior of the masses79.

Political culture, according to Richardson and Flanagan, conditions behavior by providing certain norms (means) that are withdrawn when new (non-traditional) problems arise, and

76 Almond G.A. & Verba S. The civic culture: Political attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. - Princeton, Princeton univ. press, 1963. - P. 513-517.

77 Rose R. Politics in England: Persistence and change. - Boston, 1984. - P. 164.

78 Kavanagh D. British Politics Continuities and change. - N.Y., 1985. - P. 46.

79 Marsh A. Protest and Political Controversy. - Beverly Hills, 1977. - P. 30. setting certain restrictions on what options for solving problems will meet social expectations80.

The role of political culture is to set the boundaries of behavior, which are especially important in the politics of countries where there is no written constitution or bill of rights as in the UK. This also applies to states such as Japan, where a written constitution exists but lacks broad legitimacy and then the political culture establishes

R1 parameters of the political game.

Until now, the definition of political culture given by the American political scientist G. Almond, which is considered classic, has been recognized as the most successful. This is “a specific pattern of orientations to political action”82. In accordance with this understanding of political culture, G. Almond believed that each political system operates within the framework of a specific pattern of this kind of orientation, therefore, for each system there are certain restrictions, taking into account which further political development can be predicted.

One of the methodological principles for the author of the dissertation is historicism, understood as the requirement to consider any object, any historical phenomenon in movement, formation and development, in connection with other objects and phenomena. The principle of historicism is inextricably linked with the objectivity of historical research, with the refusal to politicize historical thinking and absolutize the meaning of class contradictions. Objectivity as a theoretical and methodological principle involves overcoming one-sidedness in the assessment of social groups and political relations. Along with the principles of historicism and objectivity, the use of such general scientific methods was important for the author

80 Richardson V.M., Flanagan S.C. Politics in Japan. - Boston, 1984. - P. 164.

81 Martin C.H., Stronach B. Politics Fast and West. A comparison of Japan and British political culture - Armonk (N.Y), L., 1992, .xi.

82 Almond G.A. Comparative political system. - Journal of Politics, 1956, vol. 18, No. 3. - P. 391-393.

22 studies, both analysis and synthesis. When studying the content of the constitution, the method of analogy accepted in jurisprudence was used. Of the special historical methods when writing this essay, the author used such methods as genetic, comparative historical and the method of retrospection. This study is structured according to a problem-chronological principle.

I would like to hope that the proposed research also has some practical significance. It can be used not only for writing general works on the history of Japan, developing lecture courses on regional studies of Japan and general political science, but also provide food for practical workers - diplomats, managers, politicians in understanding the features of the political history and political system of Japan.

Structurally, the work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources and literature, and an appendix.

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “General history (of the corresponding period)”, Zhuchkova, Svetlana Mikhailovna

Conclusion

In conclusion, let us summarize the main results obtained as a result of the study.

From our point of view, many processes of Japanese political development can only be understood in the context of the evolution of political culture, the interaction of traditional culture and new institutions. These new institutions were the constitution, parliament, and some rules of the political game borrowed from the West. Political parties were of a somewhat different nature, which arose not only under the influence of Western culture, but also bore a strong imprint of the institutions and psychology that developed on Japanese soil.

In the period preceding the adoption of the constitution and the opening of the imperial parliament, i.e. establishment of a constitutional order, the Japanese government faced the following political tasks:

1. Establishment of a strong center of power. After the Meiji Restoration, the government was no longer the previous weak link between the imperial palace, which lacked political power, and some loyal samurai who served the feudal princes. By this time, the feudal princes still controlled their princely lands (khan), but their title changed from daimyo (prince) to han chiji (ruler, head of the domain). In order to eliminate the opposition of the former princes and their political power, the Meiji government sought to centralize power, using the military forces of some of the principalities that supported the restoration. The core of the government was representatives of four principalities, of which the leading roles were taken by samurai from the principality of Satsuma (now Kagoshima Prefecture) and Choshu (now Yamaguchi Prefecture). This core government is known as "hambatsu", i.e. princely cliques. It was oligarchic in nature. The first political goal of the early years of the Meiji era was to centralize power in the hands of this group.

2. The second task facing the new government was to respond to the challenge posed by the anti-government movement of disaffected ex-samurai and the "freedom and people's rights movement." The former demanded a return to traditional order and values ​​and criticized the government for being too democratic, the latter for the absence of any democratic elements. The government had to be able to bring both movements under control. In the initial period, there was no technology of peaceful parliamentary opposition, and spontaneously emerging political parties were considered primarily as a mouthpiece for protest rather than as a mechanism for political change. Although the parties acted in the name of "people's interests", their leadership consisted of former officials of various ranks and was elitist in nature. The government was able to stem the growth of the anti-government movement by setting a date for the opening of parliament.

3. The third and main task is to build a modern bureaucratic system. This system was created in parallel with the settlement of the anti-government movement and, in general, acquired its completeness by 1890, when the Japanese Parliament was opened. Thus, the Meiji government established a centralized political structure that was essentially oligarchic, but modern and strong enough to ensure the country's further political development.

The new period of political development of Japan, which began with the introduction of the constitution and the opening of parliament, is characterized by the following political processes.

1. Evolution of the party system. At the beginning of the period of constitutional rule, the so-called "people's parties" assumed the role of opposition groups to the government, non-party officials and elected representatives supported by the oligarchy. Government leaders (representatives of the Satcho oligarchy) alternately occupied the post of prime minister and attempted to manipulate parliament, while ignoring the parties. However, a series of conflicts led some of the Meiji leaders to realize that the government needed the support of the parties in parliament to continue functioning. At the same time, members of the first parties began to change their position from irreconcilable to more flexible, allowing compromise with the oligarchy. Thus, the essence of politics changed from a situation of suppression and protest to a more peaceful resolution of contradictions within the framework of parliamentarism.

2. The second characteristic feature of this period is the further strengthening of the position of the bureaucracy in the political system. The Japanese bureaucracy of that time was not only civilian. Participation in three wars: the Sino-Japanese (1894-1895), the Russian-Japanese (1904-1905) and the First World War, as a result of which Japan added Taiwan, South Sakhalin, Korea, Liaodong (lease) and received a mandate for the islands in the South Seas, in a word, the course of expansion in foreign policy resulted in a rise in the status and swelling of the military sector of the government, which became an important participant in domestic politics, and completely independent of the civilian bureaucracy.

3. The third aspect of political development is the growth of the influence of political parties due to the infusion of representatives of the bureaucracy into their ranks. By the beginning of the 20th century. political activity becomes a profession.

4. Another point in the political development of Japan is the influence of new social communities and groups, primarily the bourgeoisie, on the political process. The leading party in Japan at the beginning of the 20th century. Seyukai, contrary to assessments prevailing in Russian historiography, was not a party of the imperialist, large monopoly bourgeoisie. Its peculiarity is that it was the first to feel the need to expand its social base at the expense of the growing provincial bourgeoisie. This contained a powerful reserve not only for its own political development, but also for the subsequent restructuring of Japan’s political system.

The political culture of Japanese society was exposed to the foreign nature of the constitution and formal (official) state institutions. Political changes occurred in tandem with sociocultural changes. In Japan, formal political institutions and laws were largely imposed by external circumstances and represented a historical break with traditional culture. Many aspects of the political culture that had developed by the beginning of the 20th century ensured the progressive political and economic development of the country and introduced their own nuances into the rules of the political game.

The interaction of the traditional political culture of Japan with institutions borrowed from the West due to a number of circumstances gave a unique character to the political system of Japan itself. The Japanese monarchy was neither an absolutist monarchy380 nor a constitutional monarchy, as historians and jurists often imagine. It combined elements of a bureaucratic monarchy with a fairly pronounced tendency to preserve the ancient theocratic monarchy, in which the monarch is not so much a sovereign with political will, but primarily the highest spiritual authority, providing the political system with a sacred character and performing the function of legitimizing political decisions. These two principles manifested themselves differently in the subsequent political development of Japan, predetermining

380 This definition was given in Comintern documents and acquired the right of citizenship in Soviet historiography. See Theses of the Comintern in the appendix of the book. Kovalenko I.I. Communist Party of Japan. Essays on history - M., 1987. the originality of the evolution of the political system of Japan. The paradox of Japan's political development was that after the death of Emperor Meiji (1912), the importance of the emperor increased not as an active politician, but primarily as a sacred figure, providing legitimation for decisions made by the cabinet of ministers, the military and other executive authorities. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the political system of Japan during the Second World War was defined as a traditionalist state381.

381 See Mazurov I.A. Japanese fascism. - M.: Eastern literature, 1996. - P. 117.

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Historical Sciences Zhuchkova, Svetlana Mikhailovna, 2000

1. Sources.1. In Russian:

2. Mechnikov A.I. Memories of two years of service in Japan" // Japan at a turning point. Vladivostok, Far Eastern State University Publishing House, 1992.

3. Nakasone Ya. Politics and life. My memoirs. M.: Progress, 1994.

4. Theses of the Comintern // Program documents of the communist parties of the East. M., 1934. - pp. 237-255.

5. The Japanese about Japan /Under. Ed. A. Stead. St. Petersburg, 1906.1. In English:

6. Japan by the Japanese. A survey by its highest authorities /Ed. by A. Stead. -London, Alinemann, 1904.

7. The Meiji Japan through contemporary sources. Tokyo, 1969, IV volume.1. In Japanese:

8. Kaneko Kentaro. Kempo seitei to obezin no hyoron (The formation of the constitution and its assessment in Western public opinion). Tokyo, 1939. Kono Baneyuden (Biography of Kono Hironaka). - Tokyo, 1924.

9. Meiji bunka zenshu. Meiji bunka ken kyukai hen (Materials and documents on the history of the Meiji era). Tokyo, 1955.

10. Meiji, Taisho, Showa sandai sho:choku-shu (Collection of imperial decrees for the years of Meiji, Taisho and Showa). Tokyo, 1969.1. Research in Russian:

11. Bednyak I.Ya. Japan during the transition to imperialism. M., 1962.

12. Brooks JI. Behind the scenes of the Japanese surrender. M., 1971.

13. Bugaeva D.P. Japanese publicists of the late 19th century. M.: Nauka, 1978.

14. Burlatsky F.M., Galkin A.A. Modern Leviathan. M., 1985.

15. Goldberg D.I. Essay on the history of the labor and socialist movement in Japan in 1868-1908. M., 1976.

16. Grisheleva L.D., Chegodar N.H. Japanese culture of modern times. M., 1998.

17. Durdenevsky V.N., Lundshuveit E.F. Constitutions of the East. Leningrad, 1926.

18. Eremin V. Japanese democracy as an original product of world political civilization // Japan and global problems of humanity. -M., 1999.-S. 176-218.

19. Zhukov E.M. History of Japan. M., 1939.

20. Zagorsky A.B. General theory of democracy, East Asian model and Japanese experience // Japan and global problems of humanity. M., 1999. -S. 139-176.

21. Zagorsky A.B. The transition from totalitarianism to democracy: the Japanese experience (1945-1950) // In the book. Japan. Faces of the country at different times. M, 1994. - P. 87-101.

22. Ienaga Saburo. The emergence and collapse of ideas of modern times in Japan //Modern progressive philosophers of Japan. M.: Progress., 1964. - pp. 141-185.

23. Quigley G. Government and political life of Japan. M., 1934.

24. Kovalenko I.I. Communist Party of Japan. Essays on history M., 1987.

25. Konrad N.I. Japan. People and state. Petrograd, 1923. Mazurov I.V. Japanese fascism. - M., 1996.

26. Mikhailova Yu.D. The ideology of the “movement for freedom and people’s rights” // From the history of social thought in Japan in the 17th and 19th centuries. - M., 1991, pp. 160-192.

27. Molodyakov V.E. "Meiji Ishin" conservative revolution. - Problems of the Far East. 1993, no. 6.

28. Molodyakov V.E. Conservative revolution in Japan. M., 1999. Molodyakov V.E. Image of Japan. - M., 1996.

29. Molodyakov V.E. Three internationalizations of Japan // Japan and global problems of humanity. M., 1999. - P. 230.

30. Molodyakova E.V. Markarian S.B. Japanese society:: book of changes. M., 1996.

31. Nosov M. Japan and the outside world: joining the world community // Japan: in search of new frontiers. M., 1998. - P.191-227.

32. Essays on the modern history of Japan (1640-1917). M., 1958.

33. Petrov A. Political life of Japan. St. Petersburg, 1910.

34. Svetlov G. The Path of the Gods: Shinto in the History of Japan. M., 1985.

35. Senatorov A.I. Sen Katayama: scientific biography. M.: Nauka, 1988.

36. Sila-Novitskaya T.G. The cult of the emperor in Japan: myths, history, doctrines, politics. M., 1990.

37. Sovasteev V.V. Political thought in Japan on the eve of the Meiji coup. -Vladivostok, Far Eastern State University Publishing House, 1995.

38. Sovasteev V.V. The problem of responsibility for starting a war in the context of Japanese political culture // Bulletin of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1995, No. 6. - P. 66-70.

39. Sovasteev V.V., Zhuchkova S.M. The influence of the Prussian experience of state building on the political development of Japan // Russia and the Asia-Pacific region, Vladivostok, 1999, No. 4. P.81-86.

40. Sovasteev V.V., Zhuchkova S.M. The main stages in the development of the system of political parties in Japan (late XIX - mid-XX centuries) // Current problems of world history. Vladivostok, Far Eastern State University Publishing House, 1999. - P.75-84.

41. Kharnsky K.A. Japan in the past and present. Vladivostok, 1927.

42. Evolution of Eastern societies: synthesis of traditional and modern. M., 1984.

43. Eidus H.T. History of Japan from ancient times to the present day. M., 1968.

44. Eidus H.T. Essays on the modern and contemporary history of Japan. M., 1955.

45. Eidus H.T. Japan from the first to the second world war. M., 1946.

46. ​​Eidus H.T. Japan. Transcript of a public lecture from the series “Political Map of the World.” M., 1948.

47. Eisenstadt S. Revolution and transformation of societies. M: Aspect press. -1999.

48. Eisenstadt S.N. Convergence of modern societies: prerequisites and boundaries. Using the example of Japan // Japan in comparative sociocultural studies. M.: INIONRAN, 1990.

49. Japan: half a century of renewal. M., 1996.in English:

50. Akita George. Foundation of constitutional government in Modern Japan, 18681900. Cambridge, Harvard univ. Press, 1967.

51. Almond G.A. & Verba S. The civic culture: Political attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, Princeton univ. Press, 1963.

52. Almond G.A. Comparative political system. Journal of Politics, 1956, vol. 18, no. 3.

53. Authority and the Individual in Japan. Tokyo, University of Tokyo press, 1978.

54. Barshay Andrew. State and intellectual in Imperial Japan. Berkeley, 1988.

55. Beasley W. G. The rise of Modern Japan .- N.Y., Martin press, 1990.

56. Beasley W.G. The Japanese Imperialism. 1894-1945. Oxford. Clarendon. 1987.

57. Beckmann G. The Making of the Meiji Constitution: The Oligarchs and the constitutional Development of Japan, 1868-1891. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1957.

58. Borton H. Japan's Modern Century. New York: Ronald, 1970.

59. Changing Japanese Attitudes Toward Modernization /Ed. by Jansen M.B. -Princeton, N.J., 1965.

60. Cofucianism in modern Japan: a Study of Conservatism in Japanese Intellectual History. Tokyo, The Hokuseido press, 1959.

61. Conflict in modern Japanese history /Ed. by Tetsuo Najita and J.Victor Koschmann. Princeton, N.J., Princeton Univ. Press, 1982.

62. Duus Peter. Party rivalry and political change in Taisho Japan. Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

63. Dims Peter. Liberal Intellectuals //Conflict in modern Japanese history/Ed. by Tetsuo Najita and J.Victor Koschmann. Princeton Univ. Press, 1982.

64. Fewster S., Cordon T. Japan from shogun to superstate. -Norrbury, 1988.

65. Fraser Andrew. A political profile of Tolkushima prefecture in the early and middle Meiji period 1868-1902. Canberra, 1971.

66. Fujii Shinichi. The Essentials of Japanese Constitutional Law. Tokyo, 1939.

67. Giffard S. Japan among the powers, 1890-1990. NewHaven, London., 1994.

68. Gowen Herbert H. An outline history of Japan. London, 1928.

69. Hackett R. Political Modernization and the Meiji Genro // Political Development in Modern Japan Princeton, N.Y., 1968.

70. Hackett Roger. Yamagata Aritomo in the rise of modern Japan 1838-1922. -Cambridge, Harvard univ. Press, 1971.

71. Hall J.W. A Monarch for Modern Japan.//Political Development in Modern Japan /Ed. by Ward R.E. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968.

72. Hall J.W. Japan: From prehistory to modern times. N.Y. 1993.

73. Hallyday J. A Political History of the Japanese Capitalism. N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1975.

74. Hardacre Helen. Shinto and the state, 1868-1988. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton univ. Press, 1989.

75. Havens T. Nishi Amane and Modern Japanese Thought. Princeton, 1969.

76. History of Constitutionalism in Japan/House of Representatives. Tokyo, 1987.

77. Horner J. Francis. A Case history of Japan. L., 1948.

79. Japan and the World. Essays in Japanese history and politics. //Ed. by C.L. Bernstein, Haruhiro Fukui. Oxford, McMillan press, 1988.

80. Joshida Shigeru. Japan's Decisive Century, 1867 1967. N.-Y., Washington, 1967

81. Kishimoto Koichi. Politics in modern Japan: development and origin. Tokyo, 1982.

82. Kavanagh D. British Politics Continuities and change. N.Y., 1985.

83. MacGovern W. M. Modern Japan. Its political, military, industrial organization. -London, 1920.

85. Marshall Byron K. Capitalism and nationalism in prewar Japan. The ideology of the business elite 1868-1941. Stanford, 1967, 197 p.

86. Martin C.H., Stronach B. Politics Fast and West. A comparison of Japan and British political culture. Armonk (N.Y.), L., 1992.

88. Masaaki Takane. The political elite in Japan. Tokyo, 1987.

89. McLaren W.W. A political history of Japan during the Meiji era. London, 1965.

90. Miller F. Minobe Tatsukichi. Berkeley, 1965.

91. Mizubayashi Takeshi. A critical review of studies of the early modern emperor system. Tokyo, 1989.

92. Miyazawa T. Kempo // The Japanese Legal System. Tokyo, 1991.

93. Modern Japanese leadership.Transition and Change. Tuccson(Arizona), 1966. Morgan Young. Japan under Taisho Tenno, 1912-1926. - London, 1928. Matsunami N. The Constitution of Japan. - Tokyo, 1930.

94. Nakano Tomio. The ordinance power of the Japanese Emperor. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins press, 1923.

95. Oka Yoshitake. Five political leaders of Modern Japan. Tokyo, 1986.

96. Political Development in Modern Japan /Ed. by Ward R.E. Princeton:Princeton Univ. Press, 1968.

97. Richardson B.M., Flanagan S.C. Politics in Japan. Boston, 1984. Rose R. Politics in England: Persistence and change. - Boston, 1984.

98. Quigley. The New Japan. Government and Politics. Minneapolis, 1956.

99. Reischauer E.O., Craig A.M. Japan: Tradition & transformation. -Sydney:Allen&Unwin, 1989.

100. Scalapino A. R., Masumi J. Parties and Politics in Contemporary Japan. -Berkeley: Univ. of California press, 1962.

101. Scalapino R. Elections in Prewar Japan //Modern Japanese leadership.Transition and Change. Tuccson (Arizona), 1966.

102. Scalapino R.A. Democracy and the Party Movement in Prewar Japan. Berkeley, 1953.

103. Scherer James. Three Meiji leaders: Ito, Togo, Nogi. Tokyo, Hokuseido press, 1936.

104. Siemes J. Hermann Roessler's Commentaries on the Meiji Constitution. Monumenta Nipponica, xvii. 1962, P. 1-66.

105. Silberman B. The Beurocratic State. N.Y., 1992.

106. Silberman B., Harootunian H.D. Japan in Crisis: .Essays on Taisho Democracy. -Princeton: princeton Univ. Press, 1975.

107. Takayanagi Kenzo. A Century of Innovation //The Japanese Legal system. Ed. By Hideo Tanalca. Tokyo, 1991.

108. Takekoshi Yosaburo. Prince Saionji. Kyoto, Ritsumeikai Uni-ty, 1933.

109. The Japanese Legal System //Ed. by Hideo Tanalca. Tokyo, 1991.

110. Tsuneishi W.M. Japanese political style. An introduction to the Government and Politics of Modern Japan. -N.Y., London, 1966.

111. Umegaki Michio. After the restoration: The beginning of Japan's modern state. -N.Y.; L.: New Yorkuniv. press, 1988.

112. Ward R.E. Political Modernization and Political Culture in Japan // Political Modernization. Ed. by Welch E.C. Belmont, California, 1971.

113. Ward Robert E. Japan's political system. Englewood Cliffs N.Y., 1979.

114. Woronoff J. Politics the Japanese way. Basington, London, 1986.in Japanese:

115. Gikai-Seido 70-Nancy (70 years of parliamentarism). Tokyo., 1961.

116. Koza Nihonshi (Lecture course on the history of Japan). Tokyo, 1970, vol. IX.

117. Inada M. Meiji kempo seiritsushi (History of the drafting of the Meiji Constitution). Tokyo, 1962. 2 vol.

118. Ishii T. Meiji bunkashi: hoseihen (Cultural history of the Meiji era: changes in legislation). Tokyo, 1954.

119. Ienaga Saburo. Kyoiku chokugo seiritsu no shishoteki kosai (Historical study of the ideological foundations of the rescript on education). Tokyo,

120. Kyogoku Junichi. Seiji isiki no bunseki (Analysis of political consciousness in Japan). Tokyo, 1987.

121. Kobayakawa S. Meiji hoseishiron (On the history of Meiji legislation). -Tokyo, 1940.

122. Masumi Junnosuke. Nihon seijishi (Masumi Junnosuke. Political history of Japan). Tokyo: Then give me suppansya. - 1988. 4 vols.

123. Minobe T. Kempo Satsuyo (Basic provisions of the constitution). Tokyo, 1923.

124. Nakamura Kikuo. Gendai Seiji no jittai (Current state of politics). Tokyo, 1958.

125. Oka Yoshitake. Gendai Nihon no Seiji katei (Political processes in modern Japan). Tokyo, 1958.

126. Osatake Takeshi. Nihon Kenseishi Taiko (Main Stages of Constitutional Government in Japan). Tokyo, 1939.

127. Suzuki Masayuki. Kindai tennosei no shihai chitsujo (The system of imperial government in Japan in modern and modern times). -Tokyo, 1986.

128. Suzuki K. Kempo seitei (Establishment of the Constitution). Tokyo, 1942. Uesugi S. Kempo Jitsugi (Interpretation of the Constitution). - Tokyo, 1914.195

129. Educational and reference literature. in Russian:

130. General history of state and law / Ed. Chernilovsky. M., 1992.

131. General history of state and law / Comp. Seleznev N.A. M., Moscow State University Publishing House, 1960.

132. Kuznetsov Yu.D., Navlitskaya G.B., Syritsyn I.M. History of Japan M., 1988. in English: 1.ao Seiichi. Biographical dictionary of Japanese history. Tokyo, 1978. Mikiso Hane. Modern Japan. A Historical Survey. - Boulder, San Francisco, 1992.

133. Political system according to the Meiji Constitution.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.