Page 89 - kpi17073

88 การประชุมวิชาการ
สถาบันพระปกเกล้า ครั้งที่ 16

Democracy at ocal o ernment e el

Prefectural and municipal governments are governments closest to the
people. Residents closely observe what is happening there. As the
decentralization has progressed, more roles and responsibilities are now in the
hands of local governments. Differences of policies and programs among local
governments began to increase. There is a competition among local
governments, which means the competition among governors and mayors.
Residents directly choose governors and mayors and members of local
assemblies based on their judgment on the achievements and performance of
those chief executives and members of the local assemblies. It seems that the
number of cases in which residents use their right of petition is increasing. At
the same time, residents participate as actors in the various stages of the
process of local government. Revitalization of local areas with decreasing
population is one example. Reconstruction of the earthquake-hitten areas is
another example of such issues. They consider, speak, listen, persuade, make a
compromise and decide on the issues of common interest or concerns.
Participation in local affairs is not limited to rural areas. There are many cases
in urban areas too. These are the real practice of democracy.

The lections for the o ses of the Diet and the Democracy
There are controversies in Japan about the election system for the House
of Representatives and the House of Councilors. One controversy is about “the
value of one vote”. Because of the difference of the number of eligible voters
in each constituency, the value of one vote in certain constituency is far less
than the value of one vote in another constituency. This is judged
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the government is required to
correct the situation. Unless the situation is corrected as early as possible, it
affects the people’s trust in the system and accordingly affects the trust in the
government.
เอกสารประกอบการอภิปรายร่วมระหว่างผู้แทนจากต่างประเทศ

Another controversy is about the appropriateness or effectiveness of single
seat constituency system. As the following table shows, the number of seats
each party gets does not correspond to the ratio of the number of votes each
party gets. Under the single seat constituency system, the candidate who gets
the largest number of votes gets the seat irrespective of the ratio of the
number of obtained votes of all votes in the constituency. As a result of
aggregation of such results of all the constituencies in the election of 2005,
LDP got 219 seats, more than 70% of all seats for single seat constituencies,
with 47.77% votes of all. In the election of 2012, LDP got even more seats
with less ratio of votes. The argument is that this system does not correctly
reflect the opinions of voters, thus the result is not so democratic.