Editing Politics of Japan (section)

==Constitution==
{{Main|Constitution of Japan}}
{{See also|Meiji Constitution|Seventeen-article constitution}}
The current constitution was approved by Japan in 1947, this document aimed to address the weaknesses of the previous Meiji Constitution and lay the foundation for a vibrant democracy in Japan. Its key features include: 

* Sovereignty of the People: According to the constitutions, the sovereignty rests with the people.
* Democratic institutions: The constitution reinstated democratic institutions that had flourished under Taisho democracy.
* Expanded Suffrage: The constitution of 1947 expanded suffrage to women guaranteeing equal rights for men and women.
* Parliamentary system: Japan adopted a parliamentary system of government, maintaining a lower house and an upper house, similar to its previous democratic experiences during the Taisho era.
* Labor rights: It introduced Western-type labor practices, including a clause that declared the right to collective bargaining.
* Peace clause: The article 9 of the constitution renounces war and prohibits the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.<ref name=":0" />
===Legitimacy===
The creation and [[ratification]] of this current document has been widely viewed by many geopolitical analysts and historians as one that [[Occupation of Japan|was forced upon Japan by the United States]] after the [[Surrender of Japan|end of World War II]].<ref name="TM">{{cite journal |last1=McNelly |first1=Theodore |title=American Influence and Japan's No-War Constitution |journal=Political Science Quarterly |date=December 1952 |volume=67 |issue=4 |pages=589–598 |doi=10.2307/2145143 |jstor=2145143 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2145143 |access-date=8 February 2022 |archive-date=8 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220208183040/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2145143 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Although this "imposition" claim arose originally as a rallying cry among conservative politicians in favour of constitutional revision in the 1950s, and that it wasn't "inherently Japanese", it has also been supported by the research of several independent American and Japanese historians of the period.<ref name="TM"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kades |first1=Charles L. |title=The American Role in Revising Japan's Imperial Constitution |journal=Political Science Quarterly |date=1989 |volume=104 |issue=2 |pages=215–247 |doi=10.2307/2151582 |jstor=2151582 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151582 |access-date=8 February 2022 |archive-date=8 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220208183040/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2151582 |url-status=live }}</ref>

A competing claim, which also emerged from the political maelstrom of the 1950s revision debate, holds that the ratification decision was actually the result of apparent "collaboration" between American occupation authorities, successive Japanese governments of the time, and private sector "actors".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Boyd |first1=Patrick J. |title=Reasoning Revision: Is Japan's Constitution Japanese? |url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144455106.pdf |publisher=Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies (Waseda University) |access-date=25 January 2022 |date=22 March 2014 |archive-date=24 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210624102238/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144455106.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>