Abstract: Since the post–war era, understanding Japan’s security rhetoric and actions presented certain incongruities. While the constructivist arguments underscore that the influence of post–war antimilitarist norm shaped Japan’s security behavior, it contradicts the realist underpinnings influencing Japan’s choices. To understand Japanese post–war security orientation and comprehend the rapidly unfolding policy shift, this paper explores three sets of questions: firstly, what are the competing schools of thought in the Japanese security debate? What are their core arguments on key issues including Article 9 of the Constitution, potency of the Self–Defense Forces (SDFs), nature of the U.S.–Japan alliance and historical narratives of Japan’s past? What are the inter-school and intra-school fault lines? Secondly, what are the drivers that propelled the dominance of each school at different time frames? How does the factional power struggle in the domestic political landscape enable each school to maximize their space and influence in the current security discourse? More specifically, why did mercantilists remained the dominant political force throughout the Cold War? In contrast, what led to normalists gaining momentum and substituting mercantilism as a potent force in the post–Cold War period? Thirdly, how have political elites pursued their competing agendas and critically analyze the case of Shinzo Abe? What are the influences that shaped his values? What are the methods he employed to pursue his ambitions of making Japan a “normal” nation? And how did he consolidate his political strength and manage to realize concrete policy objectives? Full text available here.
