Shinzo Abe’s New Cabinet

On August 3, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reshuffled his cabinet. Overall, it was a very minor reshuffle.  With the exception of the appointments of Tomomi Inada, to replace Gen Nakatami as the defense minister, and Hiroshige Seiko, to replace Mikio Hayashi as the minister for economy, trade, and industry, the new cabinet lineup did not attract much attention, especially outside Japan. 

Looking closely, however, there are a few interesting elements in Abe’s new cabinet.

First, looking at who left the cabinet can be a good indicator of who might try to succeed Abe when his term as the LDP president expires in 2018. Most notable in this group is Shigeru Ishiba, who joined the cabinet in 2014 as the minister of state in charge of overseeing the revitalization of local economy, population decline, regulatory reform, administrative reform, and civil service reform. Ishiba competed with Abe in the 2012 LDP presidential election and ultimately lost.   

The days when several major political figures within the LDP gathered their own followings and competed fiercely among themselves for the LDP leadership position are long gone. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi broke the old style of factional politics in the LDP.  Still, there is a concern within the party that the lack of robust policy debate and competition among the major figures within the LDP will eventually be harmful. Among those who subscribe to such a view, Ishiba is among the leading candidates to challenge Abe. When Ishiba agreed to join the cabinet in 2014, therefore, many within the LDP who look to Ishida as their leader were frustrated, as his decision signaled that he might no longer be interested in challenging Abe in future LDP presidential elections. Ishiba’s departure from the cabinet strongly suggests that he is interested in running in the LDP presidential election in 2018 and thus decided to put himself in a position where he can question Abe’s policy decisions openly. 

Equally interesting is who decided to stay in Abe’s cabinet. It is noteworthy that Fumio Kishida, who has been Abe’s foreign minister since the very beginning in December 2012, chose to continue to serve in Abe’s cabinet. As the leader of his own faction, Kishida has frequently been talked about as a possible successor when Abe eventually steps down. Some observers say Kishida has his own calculations in choosing to stay. After all, he has a couple of major diplomatic accomplishments--visits to Hiroshima by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama among them--under his belt as the foreign minister. While others who claim to be close to Abe cause diplomatic stirs with their comments on Japan’s wartime history, Kishida has been successful in delivering a consistent message of how Japan’s policies, even with the recent changes in defense policy, remain strongly anchored in its aspiration for international peace. His steady hand, some observers speculate, and the notable diplomatic achievements under his watch will help Kishida’s image as a solid, reliable leader. Still, there is little doubt that his staying in the cabinet continues to cause frustration among those who support him. 

Then there are some cabinet members whose coming or staying has caused some to question Abe’s judgment. The most vivid example of such a “questionable” call is keeping Nobuteru Ishihara, the minister in charge of economic revitalization and other economic policies. As the chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan LDP association, Ishihara was heavily criticized for leading the party to a catastrophic defeat in the Tokyo gubernatorial election on July 31, in which the LDP-endorsed candidate lost to Yuriko Koike, a former defense minister from the LDP who ran as an independent, by a 2-to-1 margin. In fact, Ishihara resigned from his position as the Tokyo Metropolitan LDP chair in response to the mounting call for him to take responsibility for the defeat, so there was surprise when it became clear that he  would keep his cabinet position. 

The other appointment that raised eyebrows in some corners was the appointment of Tomomi Inada as the defense minister, to replace Gen Nakatani.  Rather than her deep expertise in defense, Inada is known for her very conservative views and for visiting the controversial Yasukuni Shrine. She has also invited criticism in the past for making comments that can be interpreted as supporting the reintroduction of the draft -- Japan has completely moved away from a draft and maintains a voluntary service structure for the Japan Self-Defense Force.  As such, some questioned the wisdom of appointing her as a defense minister precisely when Japan has finally begun to mend ties with the Republic of Korea, a fellow U.S. ally in Northeast Asia. There is an ever-growing need for a closer trilateral security cooperation among the U.S., Japan, and the ROK to check the provocations from North Korea. 

Finally, there is one more appointment that was considered an interesting move on Abe’s part. Tamayo Marukawa, who served as Abe’s environmental minister in his last cabinet, has been reassigned as the minister in charge of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Some describe her appointment as Abe’s best effort to control the damage caused by the LDP-backed candidate’s loss to Koike in Tokyo’s gubernatorial race:  Marukawa’s appointment will make it hard for now-Governor Koike to dominate the spotlight on issues related to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. 

So far, Abe’s new cabinet has brought mixed reviews.  His supporters applauded his cabinet as “solid and steady,” and his opponents described it as “lackluster” and “nothing noteworthy.” Some even criticized certain appointments, such as Inada’s new post, as the resurrection of otomodachi jinji (personnel appointments based on friendship), for which Abe was strongly criticized when he was the prime minister the first time around. One thing is for sure—aside from the occasional media headline, none of his cabinet ministers, probably with the exception of Finance Minister Taro Aso and Kishida, attracts greater attention than the prime minister himself. While it may serve Abe well in office, this may be a source of concern for those who are looking at Japanese politics beyond Abe’s tenure. Given how quickly post-Koizumi Japan entered a period of political instability, with a new prime minister each year, such concerns may be justified.