Why did he announce his candidacy? Asked a man from China who wants to become the mayor of Atami
The ABEMA TIMES article (2024/1122) is summarized below.
Chinese person announcing his candidacy in Atami mayoral election causes ripples
Mr. Haoyo Xu (31) from China has announced his candidacy for the 2026 Atami mayoral election. Mr. Xu came to Japan in 2015 and opened a Chinese products store in Atami City in 2022. He became dissatisfied with the city government due to hs experience of being affected by the Atami debris flow disaster in 2021, and decided to run for office because he wanted to change politics.
Mr. Xu is applying for naturalization, and if his application is successful, he will be able to run for mayor. On the other hand, a debate has arisen over the right to vote for foreigners, with some saying that the issue should be discussed carefully from the perspective of Japan’s security and autonomy. Some have voiced concerns that Atami will be taken over.
Mr. Xu’s policies and claims
The goal is economic recovery and free medical and educational expenses for the elderly.
He explained that his motivation for running was “love for Atami” and “I want to reduce discrimination and prejudice”.
He also stated that “improving city administration will help eliminate prejudice against foreigners”.
Opinions regarding foreign suffrage
Professor Kondo of Meijo University argues that “foreigners should be allowed the right to run for office in local areas”.
Lawmaker Fumiaki Kobayashi countered by saying, “We should consider the security risks” and emphasized the importance of screening for naturalization.
In addition, regarding the government’s response, there is an opinion that “we should consider how to reflect the issues faced by foreigners in the government”. Mr. Xu’s candidacy is an opportunity to reconsider the nature of foreign suffrage and local autonomy.
Advantages and disadvantages of allowing foreigners the right to vote (explanation by AI teacher)
1.Benefits of allowing foreigners the right to vote
(1) Expansion of democracy
Foreigner suffrage extends the fundamental principle of democracy: ensuring representation. Foreigners also live in local communities, pay taxes, and contribute to the economy and culture. Therefore, it is important from an equity perspective that they have the right to participate in the decision-making process.
Case: Sweden
In Sweden, foreigners with permanent residence are given the right to vote in local elections. This system promotes the social integration of immigrants and helps realize a multicultural society. The involvement of immigrants in local government has made it easier for the grievances and challenges of specific communities to be reflected in policy.
(2) Promoting social integration
By allowing foreigners the right to vote, it is believed that foreigners will have a sense of responsibility towards the local community and will promote social integration. Having foreigners participate in decision-making makes it easier to build relationships of mutual trust.
Case: New Zealand
Allowing foreigners the right to vote shows flexibility in immigration policy and is a factor in attracting talented people. This increases the country’s attractiveness as a migration destination and has the potential to increase its international competitiveness.
Case: Belgium
In Belgium, even non-EU nationals can participate in local elections after a certain number of years of residence. This policy has been successful in showing an attitude of actively accepting immigrants and promoting multicultural coexistence.
2.Disadvantages of allowing foreigners the right to vote
(1) Concerns about national sovereignty
Granting foreigners the right to vote should be carefully discussed as an issue related to national sovereignty. Particularly if the country of origin of the foreign national has a conflicting relationship with the home country, there is a possibility of external influence.
Case: Germany
Although foreign suffrage is being discussed in Germany, concerns have been voiced about the growing political influence of Turkish immigrants in particular. Some have pointed out that the values and interests of immigrants may have an unnecessary influence on Germany’s domestic policy.
(2) Risk of social division
There is a possibility that social divisions will deepen as a disparity arises between those who have the right to vote and those who do not, and political participation by foreigners may provoke a lot of backlash. There are also concerns that policies that are biased toward specific ethnic groups or nationalities will advance.
Case: France
In France, there is strong opposition to giving immigrants the right to vote. In particular, there is ongoing debate about whether the rise of Muslim immigrants will lead to social division. For this reason, they remain cautious about introducing foreign suffrage.
(3) Increased political apathy
Even if foreigners are given the right to vote, it does not necessarily mean that foreigners will actively participate in politics. If immigrants who are granted the right to vote do not vote, the effectiveness of the policy may be limited and the administrative burden may increase due to the increase in the number of voters.
Case: Netherlands
Although foreigners have the right to vote in local elections in the Netherlands, voter turnout among immigrant communities tends to be low. This highlights the challenge that political engagement has not progressed as much as expected.
3.Discussion in Japan
In Japan, there has been debate over foreign suffrage for many years, but no concrete system has been introduced. In particular, public sentiment regarding immigration from South Korea and China is complicated, so this issue requires careful handling.
Positive opinion
- Local governments need a system that allows permanent residents to be directly involved in local issues.
- As globalization progresses, it is essential for building an international symbiotic society.
Negative opinion
- There is a risk that the interests of foreigners will be given priority and the interests of Japanese people will be harmed.
- Diplomatic issues may affect local politics.
4.Conclusion
Although allowing foreigners the right to vote has many benefits, such as strengthening social integration and democracy, there are also risks that could affect national sovereignty and social harmony.
Looking at examples from various countries, we can see that resolving this issue requires careful discussion and institutional design. In Japan as well, a realistic solution would be to start by granting suffrage in a limited way, taking into account the local circumstances and the needs of the foreign community.
Ultimately, whether to grant foreign suffrage will depend on how to balance democratic principles with national sentiment.
My thought
I think we should reconsider the significance of the electoral system. This is because politicians, who are supposed to be role models for the people, are in a state of relative decline in all aspects of talent, leadership, and dignity, both nationally and locally.
People who runs their nation/region should be those who are concerned about the future of their country or region and have a strong passion for the future, but most of people do not look like so.
In such a situation, in which the foundation for steering a country or region is in jeopardy, allowing foreign leadership will jeopardize the foundation of the country or region.
For the above reasons, I am against allowing foreigners the right to vote.
I’m afraid to say that we are not in a state where we can discuss foreign suffrage from the perspective of human rights and equality.