Here are questions raised by students in class and the professor's answers.
Q1. By the early Meiji period, why did Japan already feel that it was no longer threatened to be colonized?
When Japan was forced by the West to open its ports (1853-54), the possibility of colonization was real. But by Meiji Restoration (1868), Japan no longer worried too much about being colonized. Instead, its national goal became to catch up fast with the West. What happened in the intervening 15 years? It is difficult to answer succinctly, but I suppose the following factors were at play:
--Despite social confusion, national unity and "ownership" were preserved, devastating civil war was avoided and the state machinery was intact even with the change of governments.
--Japan was importing and absorbing Western technology very fast, and military and economic capability was being enhanced.
--Seeing this, Westerners were mainly interested in securing commercial interests rather than using military might to occupy Japan. Anyway, Japan was too far away from home, and Americans were busy with their own Civil War.
--There was a mutual check among Westerners in Japan (especially British and French) which prevented the dominance of any single country, to the benefit of the Japanese government.
Q2. Why didn't the Western powers try to colonize Korea?
I have no good answer. But I can give you the following suggestions: (i) they were busy with other things (American Civil War 1861-65, Prussia-France War 1870-71, etc); (ii) Far East was too far away; (iii) Korea maintained a strict closed door policy; (iv) China (Qing Dynasty) considered Korea as a protectorate. The first two points can also apply to Japan.
Q3. In what respect was the Meiji Constitution ambiguous?
Here are some translated excerpts from the Constitution of the Empire of Japan (1889). Underlined parts were subject to different interpretations.
Article 3. The Emperor is sacred and inviolable. [This means ministers, not the Emperor, bear the responsibility for policies. This line was copied from typical European constitutions at the advice of Roesler (German legal advisor); it is not unique to Japan]
Article 4. The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to the provisions of the present Constitution.
Article 5. The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent of the Imperial Diet [=parliament].
Article 55. The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to the Emperor, and be responsible for it.The intention of the original drafters (especially Hirobumi Ito) was to place Emperor within the state mechanism and under the constitution, as Article 4 makes it clear. But conservatists in the Privy Council demanded to delete the underlined part from Article 4, which Ito resisted. Much later in the 1930s, Ito's interpretation was denied and the Emperor came to be held above the state and constitution. Article 5 says the parliament must give "consent" to Emperor's legislative decision. In the Japanese original, the term shonin (=approve) was first proposed but replaced by a weaker term, kyosan (=humbly support). The problem with Article 55 was that it was unclear whether individual ministers or a cabinet as a whole were to advise the Emperor (especially in military matters). If joint decision was required, the minister of army or navy must discuss the issue with other ministers (especially ministers of finance and foreign affairs). If not, he could advise the Emperor by himself. This constitution also said little about the precise relationship between the legislative and administrative powers, which permitted both a party cabinet as well as a government that ignored the parliament.
Q4. In world history, kings and emperors did not last very long. Political upheavals could easily end their rule, followed by another dynasty or empire. Why has Japan's imperial family lasted so long?
A tough question. I can hardly answer with any confidence, but let me try.
According to legend (Kojiki, or Ancient Chronicle, 712), Japanese islands were created and inhabited by a group of gods who descended from heaven, and their progeny became the imperial family. After the Meiji period, the government decided that the transformation from god to human in the imperial family occurred on February 11, 660 BC (the first human Emperor Jimmu came to power). In 1940, the wartime government celebrated the 2600th anniversary of this event. But historically, we do not know the exact date of the beginning of the imperial family (around 7th century AD?)
During the war years (1930s-45), it was taught that the Japanese imperial family had continued in one divine lineage from time immemorial. This bestowed superiority on the Japanese people who were ruled by such an auspicious family. How much of the legend one now believes is up to each individual. But even counting from the 7th century, the continuation of the imperial family for such a long time is certainly very unique in world history. The emperor had a real political power in the 8th century, but his power declined quickly in the following centuries. Why was the Japanese Emperor never abolished? (Some argue that the imperial family is not really of one lineage. But we are interested in political continuity, not genetic.)
The first samurai leader came to power as a military general appointed by the imperial family (1192). This was a political convenience followed by all subsequent samurai governments. For those surrounded by strong military rivals, the use of imperial authority was useful in legitimizing their rule. There was no need to topple the Emperor who resided in Kyoto, conducted rituals and ceremonies only, and was harmless. Another factor is that Japan was never invaded or occupied by foreigners (except by the Americans during 1945-52) so the imperial family was never wiped out. (The Americans even considered the trial and execution of the Emperor as a war criminal but they changed their mind, being afraid of nationwide riots that it might cause.)
Once the tradition began in which the new political leader must be formally appointed by the Emperor, this political procedure became firmly entrenched. It soon became impossible for any leader to do otherwise. The political cost of ousting the Emperor was just too great compared with the cost of operating under his authority. The Meiji government reactivated this political practice when it wanted to consolidate power.