The astonishing reasons for the persistence of bribery among Japanese politicians

In the era of Prince Shotoku, this was a “serious crime”…

Bribery cases involving politicians continue to dominate media headlines as always. Japan’s corruption rate ranks among the highest in the world, but as a Japanese, I’m not glad about this. Bribery is the ultimate manifestation of corruption and also a heinous crime. Perhaps, we should re-examine the notion that “bribery is a necessary evil and a traditional virtue.”

To verify this, we only need to review the history of criminal law. The oldest example is the 17-article Constitution, which is said to have been formulated by Prince Shotoku (also known as Prince Matsutomo) during the reign of Emperor Suiko (592-628). Article 5 of the Constitution strongly condemns bribery. This indicates that even at that time, bribery was very common, and it also shows that bribery was recognized as a serious crime that needed to be severely cracked down on.

Although the 17-article Constitution does not stipulate specific criminal penalties, the first legal compilation of Japan, the “Daipo Code” (completed in August 701 AD), contains a criminal code called “Kaminaru”, in which the crime of bribery is described as “Benboku”. The character “bian” means “crooked”, and corruption refers to “the crime of officials misinterpreting the law”.

The punishment for those who accept bribes is: if the amount of the bribe is equivalent to one foot of cloth, they will be punished with eighty strokes of the cane. The amount of the bribe was equivalent to thirty taels of cloth, and the offender was sentenced to death by hanging. Eighty strokes of the cane refer to hitting the back eighty times with a cane, similar to the hundred strokes of the cane in the Edo period. If the person accepting a bribe does not seek any benefits, it is called “death due to bribery”. Although the maximum penalty is exile, it is still a serious crime.

However, with the advent of the Kamakura period and the rise of the samurai world, people’s attitudes towards bribery began to change dramatically.

Neither the Kamakura Shogunate’s “Kousei Meishimoku” nor the Edo Shogunate’s “Samurai Shogunate” contained any provisions regarding bribery, and this situation persisted until the Meiji period in 1881. During this period, the official provisions on bribery in the Daibo Code remained in effect. However, under the rule of samurai, as the laws of the imperial court were not applicable, bribery was often not subject to significant restrictions or was influenced by the will of those in power at that time.

During the Edo period, small “gifts” were very common.

The concept of bribery has changed over time. Even within the same samurai government, during the Edo period, regular gifts given at the beginning of the year or the Hachi Festival (the end of the Obon Festival on the first day of the eighth lunar month) were not regarded as bribery but were given in the name of benefits, gifts or rewards, and the way they were viewed was the same as today’s mid-year and year-end gifts. Small gifts that have nothing to do with festivals or ceremonial occasions are disregarded.

This sum of money seems very generous, but it has a lot to do with the economic situation of samurai in the Edo period.

Although samurai were the ruling class in the Edo period, their lives were very hard. Their salaries remain unchanged, but their expenses keep increasing. Even though they try hard to save money and take part-time jobs, many people are still heavily in debt.

In peacetime, samurai do not engage in battles and their scope of duty is also restricted. If one is appointed as a local official, Nagasaki local official, financial local official, construction local official, or serves as the deputy or police officer of a local official, it is regarded as a great achievement. Any such position can bring huge benefits.

Although the samurai themselves were well aware that deception was unacceptable, they had no choice but to support their families. Self-respect alone was not enough to escape poverty, so most samurai did their best to earn as much money as possible in those well-paid positions.

However, the simple and crude way of giving a large amount of gold coins at one time is just a common plot in TV dramas. In real bribery, the briber tends to visit the bribe-taker frequently and give small gifts each time. Building interpersonal relationships is more important than the amount of money.

Tokugawa Yoshimune’s firm attitude…

Take the fall of Tanuma Koji (1719-1788) as an example. Tanuma Koji was a ruler of the shogunate notorious for corruption. At that time, the shogunate issued an edict, requiring its direct officials not to visit the residences of senior advisors twice a day. After consulting various materials, Matsuura Kiyoyama, the Lord of the Hirado Domain in Kyushu, concluded: “Visiting every day is too frequent, but visiting every three to five days is acceptable.”

Even during the Edo Shogunate period, there were some rulers who were keen on eradicating corruption, such as the eighth shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune and Matsudai Sadanobu, who led the Kansei Reform. However, generally speaking, unless corruption was extremely serious, it was often tolerated.

In 1719, three years after Yoshimune became the shogun, he ordered a thorough performance review of all 50 officials and punished 20 of them for misconduct such as accepting bribes and misappropriating public funds. Those convicted were exiled, and so were their children. Even those who are innocent are prohibited from passing the position of the head of the household to their children.

Furthermore, Yoshimune always maintained a tough stance. He transferred all the officials, regardless of whether they had committed any mistakes or not, and dismissed all the assistants of the officials, replacing them with new ones. However, Yoshimune’s strict discipline is particularly worthy of attention, as it reflects that during the reigns of other shoguns, the misconduct of officials was often tolerated.

However, we need to be reserved about the bad reputation of Tanuma Okuji. Specifically, his misconduct was not much different from that of the previous and subsequent shogunate officials. The criticism of Hei Ji seemed to mainly stem from jealousy over his rise from a humble position. In recent years, Chong’s mercantilist policies have also been highly praised.

Later, during the Meiji period, the Criminal Code, which was promulgated in July 1880 and came into effect on January 1, 1882, included the crime of accepting bribes. However, since it only applies to the crime of accepting bribes, it has not had a deterrent effect.

However, bribery continues.

The 1907 amendment was implemented, which included the following provisions: A maximum of three years’ imprisonment shall be imposed on those who offer bribes, accept bribes or solicit bribes; Those who accept bribes but do not offer any benefits shall be sentenced to imprisonment for one to ten years. Confiscate the actual bribe money; If confiscation is not possible, an equal amount shall be charged. If the person surrenders himself/herself, his/her sentence will be reduced or waived.

Furthermore, with the establishment of wartime economic control during the Showa era, the power of civil servants was strengthened, and the disciplinary requirements also increased accordingly. In 1941, the scope of punishment was significantly expanded, and the regulation that bribers could be exempted from punishment if they surrendered themselves was abolished.

Since the end of the war, the criminal law concerning bribery has undergone multiple revisions. The overall trend is to expand the scope of penalties and increase the amount of fines, but unfortunately, bribery cases still occur frequently.

Modern politicians and civil servants earn a lot and cannot be compared with samurai in the Edo period. Furthermore, to run again after only a few years of self-restraint, claiming that the “purification” has been completed, is an insult to the voters.

It is necessary to stop as soon as possible the bad habit of constantly mocking voters as “teachers” and worshipping them.