Emperor Akihito reportedly planning to abdicate - Polidicks

[quote]Japan's Emperor Akihito is planning to abdicate in favour of his eldest son within a few years, Japanese media reports. The 82-year-old monarch has told those close to him that the role should be occupied by someone who can fulfil the emperor's duties as stipulated in the constitution, public broadcaster NHK reported, without citing a source for the information. Under Japan's current Imperial Household Law, which governs the status of the emperor, there is no legal mechanism for abdication. Any move to step down would therefore require a revision of that law.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-13/japan-emperor-planning-to-abdicate-japan-media-reports/7627222[/url]

Always interesting when power changes hands.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50702096]Always interesting when power changes hands.[/QUOTE] Well it's not actual power.

How much power does the Japanese emperor have? [editline]ah[/editline] [QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50702110]Well it's not actual power.[/QUOTE] Well there we go then :ninja: Yeah, looking into it he's got as much power as the Queen of the UK (if not a little less). More of a figurehead than anything.

I didn't even know Japan still had an emperor

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50702138]I didn't even know Japan still had an emperor[/QUOTE] That's kind of their thing.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50702138]I didn't even know Japan still had an emperor[/QUOTE] Alot of people don't realize that Hirohito never abdicated and went on as Empereror until the 80s

Atleast it will be easier to keep track of what year it is now.

Sweet, new Era coming up.

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;50702158]Alot of people don't realize that Hirohito never abdicated and went on as Empereror Showa until the 80s[/QUOTE] No, he was renamed Showa after he died, per Japanese tradition. He was Hirohito until that day however.

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50702110]Well it's not actual power.[/QUOTE] Only a fool would think it is not actual power.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50702267]Only a fool would think it is not actual power.[/QUOTE] But Japanese Emperors can't do anything. They're symbolic like the British monarchy.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50702138]I didn't even know Japan still had an emperor[/QUOTE] The US determined that the Emperor had too much support to get rid of without violence after WW2 (and that was despite their support of the Japan's war effort).

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50702267]Only a fool would think it is not actual power.[/QUOTE] The Allied Occupying Government pretty effectively neutered the Emperor.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50702286]But Japanese Emperors can't do anything. They're symbolic like the British monarchy.[/QUOTE] Are you really trying to say that the British monarchy holds no power what so ever? no political power? There was a law removed only in 2011 that allowed her the power to disband Parliament... the monarch still has the power to stop the Prorogation, causing Parliament to just stop functioning. Even if some more laws are enacting stripping them from their few remaining active powers, they have political say through the Parliament to the point that they can shift the course of a vote or influence politicians in a favourable way. Theres also the point that the monarch is still the head of state and military powers of some very large countries. and just this status by name gives them massive power over them. In japan its even worse, even though the actual field of influence is smaller (just japan) the japanese emperor has some real covert political say in japan through the reformation and respect doctrine and the nihonkoku-kenpo. Even if monarchs have no 'active power' over legislature, the fact that they become the face of the country gives them influence over politics without the responsibility for it.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50702329]Are you really trying to say that the British monarchy holds no power what so ever? no political power? There was a law removed only in 2011 that allowed her the power to disband Parliament... the monarch still has the power to stop the Prorogation, causing Parliament to just stop functioning. Even if some more laws are enacting stripping them from their few remaining active powers, they have political say through the Parliament to the point that they can shift the course of a vote or influence politicians in a favourable way. Theres also the point that the monarch is still the head of state and military powers of some very large countries. and just this status by name gives them massive power over them. In japan its even worse, even though the actual field of influence is smaller (just japan) the japanese emperor has some real covert political say in japan through the reformation and respect doctrine and the nihonkoku-kenpo. Even if monarchs have no 'active power' over legislature, the fact that they become the face of the country gives them influence over politics without the responsibility for it.[/QUOTE] Except if they actually tried to exercise it they'd be ignored. Technically a bill doesn't become law in Britain (or even Canada) until the Queen gives her royal assent to it. But it's very obvious that she wouldn't withhold it because she doesn't have the power too. Monarchs also don't really involve themselves in politics anymore, and they're expected to remain impartial.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50702329]Are you really trying to say that the British monarchy holds no power what so ever? no political power? There was a law removed only in 2011 that allowed her the power to disband Parliament... the monarch still has the power to stop the Prorogation, causing Parliament to just stop functioning. Even if some more laws are enacting stripping them from their few remaining active powers, they have political say through the Parliament to the point that they can shift the course of a vote or influence politicians in a favourable way. Theres also the point that the monarch is still the head of state and military powers of some very large countries. and just this status by name gives them massive power over them. In japan its even worse, even though the actual field of influence is smaller (just japan) the japanese emperor has some real covert political say in japan through the reformation and respect doctrine and the nihonkoku-kenpo. Even if monarchs have no 'active power' over legislature, the fact that they become the face of the country gives them influence over politics without the responsibility for it.[/QUOTE] ok bro I meant it more in the sense that he doesn't have the kind of power that Megadave's comment implies he does because "power changes hands" makes it sound like something as significant as a change in ruling party.

Uso! But really, this is shocking. This never happens! Except now I guess.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50702138]I didn't even know Japan still had an emperor[/QUOTE] Japan is the only country in the world that still uses the title of Emperor/Empress, even though they are functionally basically just a (constitutional) kingdom.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50702549]Japan is the only country in the world that still uses the title of Emperor/Empress, even though they are functionally basically just a (constitutional) kingdom.[/QUOTE] Part of that is just translation convention. Tenno doesn't have exactly the same meaning that Emperor does, that's just what some Jesuit priest thought was the best fit when translating.

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50702573]Part of that is just translation convention. Tenno doesn't have exactly the same meaning that Emperor does, that's just what some Jesuit priest thought was the best fit when translating.[/QUOTE] Oh I didn't know that

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50702110]Well it's not actual power.[/QUOTE] I don't think the Japanese would mind if the emperor was to brought back into the fold.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50702412]Except if they actually tried to exercise it they'd be ignored. Technically a bill doesn't become law in Britain (or even Canada) until the Queen gives her royal assent to it. But it's very obvious that she wouldn't withhold it because she doesn't have the power too. Monarchs also don't really involve themselves in politics anymore, and they're expected to remain impartial.[/QUOTE] It's a case of de jure vs de facto. De jure the Monarchy still has quite a lot of power. However, they are de facto powerless because exercising such powers would be massively unpopular.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50702412]Except if they actually tried to exercise it they'd be ignored. Technically a bill doesn't become law in Britain (or even Canada) until the Queen gives her royal assent to it. But it's very obvious that she wouldn't withhold it because she doesn't have the power too. Monarchs also don't really involve themselves in politics anymore, and they're expected to remain impartial.[/QUOTE] If the Queen prorogues or dissolves Parliament, it simply would not function. Would you expect 1,448 people coming together (those that are pro-Monarch and pro-Republic) and agreeing to sit despite the Queen saying otherwise? You'd have a Constitutional disaster. The Monarch in the UK wouldn't be ignored. The only time I could ever see it being ignored is if the Monarch did not assent to the dissolution of the Crown / English Monarchy itself after a bill passes through Parliament.

This happens when Shinzo Abe just got re-elected with a supermajority. Strange coincidence.

I'm curious how this works out for political players that still hold on to the old guard ideologies.

according to a new article out of asahi shinbun these claims have been rejected as completely false: [url]http://www.asahi.com/articles/ASJ7F6W4MJ7FUTIL04G.html[/url]