Is Hirohito the right Head of Government for Japan?

[Herr B.]

While it is unquestioned, that Hirohito was the Head of State of Japan, he was not the Head of Government and in fact had little influence in the government itself.

In HOI4 it remains unclear, if the portraits are representing the HoS or the HoG, but mainly because of the UK I tend to believe the latter one.

So, question of the day: Should the Primeminister of Japan be represented as the portrait instead of Hirohito? The main issue is, that the PM changed fairly often until Tojo took over in 1941.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

I Feel like it should be Tojo with a national spirit for Hirohito (like the UK)

But I don't think it will change now.

 

[Lars_Schneller]

On a first glance, there is no specific pattern, they just go after who has the most influence. Hence countries with insignificant monarchs like British, dominions and Benelux states, or countries with string chancellorial traditions like Austria have their PMs, while very autocratic countries such as those in Latin America, or which have strong presidential traditions such as USA have their HoS.

Now, recurring problem here is that Japan's Meiji Constitution gave emperor active role in domestic politics and diplomacy. So, situation wasn't the same as in UK - while in UK ruler was pretty insignificant because of the role given to him by law, here emperor could play a bigger role - he just didn't, because he wasn't very capable of doing so.

Possible analogy can be made with German empire 1916-1918, where kaiser, who normally was relatively powerful political factor, was reduced to figurehead by General Staff. Less known example is Serbia in 1872-1880, where knez Milan, by Constitution more powerful then Parliament and government, was practically tutored by illustrious politician, diplomat and administrator Jovan Ristić. That is what tends to happen with incompetent rulers inheriting extensive powers granted by constitution - they pass it over to influential administrators or military leaders.

I think PDX here took the route of which political factor prevailed by Constitution, not by who really was in charge. If that's true, then Hirohito's placement would be justified.

 

[Herr B.]

On a first glance, there is no specific pattern, they just go after who has the most influence. Hence countries with insignificant monarchs like British, dominions and Benelux states, or countries with string chancellorial traditions like Austria have their PMs, while very autocratic countries such as those in Latin America, or which have strong presidential traditions such as USA have their HoS.

I think, this is good summarised as "Head of Government". In the US, the president is the HoG, and the Ministers report to him. In most European nations, the HoS and HoG were parted - the monarch or president would be weak and a Prime Minister or Chancellor would lead the Government. Noteable exceptions are both France and Nazi-Germany, albeit for completly different reasons. France always had a strong president position, as a leftover from the first revolution. In Nazi-Germany, the orginially parted positions were merged upon the death of Hindenburg ('35).

Now, recurring problem here is that Japan's Meiji Constitution gave emperor active role in domestic politics and diplomacy. So, situation wasn't the same as in UK - while in UK ruler was pretty insignificant because of the role given to him by law, here emperor could play a bigger role - he just didn't, because he wasn't very capable of doing so.

The "royal prerogatives" in the UK are pretty massive even today - the monarch just happens to not use them or only use them on behalf of the PM. This might be due to the fact the UK lacks a formal consitution that most nations have. Most of the UKs politics are dominited by unwritten laws.

In Japan, this was a similar case. In fact, he was the only HoS that was allowed to stay after WW2. But this just shows, how little effect Hirohito really had during WW2. In contrast to that, the relatives of Hirohito sometimes had powerful positions - an especially sad example is Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, who was, as least at part, responsible for the massacre of Nanjing.

 

[cursorhiker]

I would venture that the reason the prime ministers aren't represented is there are far too many of them, with a couple only serving for a few months before resigning.

 

[Vlad123]

The idea, are, like a mod...both are present! like leader, anyone with trait etc...this make the modding for modern/cold war/WW1 era more easy...

 

[Lars_Schneller]

In most European nations, the HoS and HoG were parted - the monarch or president would be weak and a Prime Minister or Chancellor would lead the Government.

That is correct, although Constitution was often enough evaded in opposite way of what I mentioned earlier - for example, king of Yugoslavia, that by Vidovdan constitution (that was somewhat adapted Serbian constitution of 1903) was supposed to be almost non-existent in politics, was quite a power, and managed to proclaim royal dictatorship. In Eastern Europe HoS usually had bigger impact then in West (excluding France).

The "royal prerogatives" in the UK are pretty massive even today - the monarch just happens to not use them or only use them on behalf of the PM. This might be due to the fact the UK lacks a formal consitution that most nations have. Most of the UKs politics are dominited by unwritten laws.

Lack of written constitution is most likely why most British rulers after George III gradually stopped trying to increase authority of HoS.

In Japan, this was a similar case. In fact, he was the only HoS that was allowed to stay after WW2. But this just shows, how little effect Hirohito really had during WW2. In contrast to that, the relatives of Hirohito sometimes had powerful positions - an especially sad example is Prince Asaka Yasuhiko, who was, as least at part, responsible for the massacre of Nanjing.

Big thing is that Meiji constitution was suspended and then replaced after WW2. But, point about emperor's insignificance stands - the fact he stayed on throne shows only that Americans found it more opportune to appease strong monarchist sentiments in Japan than to depose such a marginal figure. Hirohito did never play much of a role. However, his constitutional right clearly allowed him to do so, had he only wanted. Imagine a WW1 mod set in 1916 - should the national leader be Wilhelm II or Hindenburg/Ludendorff? There are arguments both to place PM and Hirohito in charge, only difference is which logic Paradox pursues - is it to place theoretically strong monarchs or their practically strong ministers and advisors.

 

[Lars_Schneller]

To add to this, I've found an example which might be illustrious - national leader of Kingdom of Nepal, that is supposed to be absolute monarchy (obviously this isn't entirely applicable as Nepal had no written constitution at the time, however we can assume from traditions that royal authority was indeed supposed to be absolute) isn't ruled by King Tribhuvan, but by member of all-powerful oligarchic family Juddha Rana. There probably are more examples, but it doesn't seem they've really followed certain logic when assigning NLs.

 

[Vlad123]

how did I propose (and it is done in a mod) if you put both that is HoS and HoG? On hoi3 and hoi2 there were both and you could not change them (except via event etc)

 

[colonel Oink]

I think it would be more correct: at the start of 1936, Hirohito will be the leader of the neutrals, after taking the focus on cleansing the Kodoha faction, Fumimaru Konoe becomes the leader as a fascist, and then Hideki Tojo. (This choice is dictated by the fact that these two were ministers the longest, at that time) If the focus was on supporting the Kodokh faction, then in the future it will be possible to choose the leader of the neutrals: Hirohito or General Sadao Araki (leader of "Kodokha"). (Either Shёwa Restoration or Modern Shogunate, respectively)

 

[Rashie]

Hirohito was more involved in the Japanese government during this period than earlier writing (i.e cold war era) would have you believe, a lot of it coming down to the allies wanting to ease the transition of Japan into a democracy.

We still need figures such as Tojo represented better, but having Hirohito as the leader portrait isn't that off.

 

[Fulmen]

The portraits are supposed to represent whoever held the most power in practice. With that in mind for Japan it should probably normally be the PM.

 

[jumbi]

The portraits are supposed to represent whoever held the most power in practice. With that in mind for Japan it should probably normally be the PM.

Not always. We already have a notable exception to this in Japan's sphere of influence: Puyi leading Manchukuo. Hirohito was far more involved in imperial policy than Puyi was in Manchurian and has the distinct advantage of being a single, continuous figure requiring a single portrait unlike Japan's many, many prime ministers during the period

 

[Fulmen]

Not always.

I didn't say PDX always followed their own logic. Looking at the various leaders in the game, particularly those of monarchies, it is quite clear it is is supposed to be the logic. Or I guess you could also say it's supposed to be whatever PDX wants it to be; that works too.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

has the distinct advantage of being a single, continuous figure requiring a single portrait unlike Japan's many, many prime ministers during the period

This is the biggest thing to be honest. The Japanese government of the period was in all sorts of flux with resignations, assassinations, intrigues between the army and navy, rival factions plotting against each other, Prime Ministers coming and going regularly, etc. Paradox doesn’t want/need to model that level of detail, so Hirohito serves as a good-enough catch-all for the Imperialist Japanese Government (becoming a national spirit constitutional monarch if Japan goes democratic).

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The best solution would be implementing two positions (Head of State and Head of Government like in HoI III), but without such an overhaul PMs should be leaders.

here`s an idea who the leaders of Japan (historical, Kodoha and democratic paths) should be and the differences between the paths.

• Keisuke Okada should be the leader at the 1936 startdate (Hiranuma Kiichirō in 1939)
• Hirohito should be represented by a national spirit like other monarchs but become the actual ruler with the Showa Restoration focus (Sadao Araki would become ruler with the Modern Shogunate). both would stay the ruler for the rest of the game.
• Taking the Purge the Kodoha path should unlock a set of decisions to change the leader (PM). Each (historical) leader would have different traits. The player would be able to rotate leaders for some PP cost. e.g. Tojo would be a wartime leader.
• Since The Showa Constitution focus would need to be changed or replaced, Democratic Japan should have a focus for the first free elction instead. The choice would be between Tetsu Katayama (Social Democratic), Saito Takao (Constitutional Democratic) and Kijuro Sidehara (Progressive). they should also provide different boons, but could only be changed via new election (every 4 years.).

What do you think about this idea?

This is the biggest thing to be honest. The Japanese government of the period was in all sorts of flux with resignations, assassinations, intrigues between the army and navy, rival factions plotting against each other, Prime Ministers coming and going regularly, etc. Paradox doesn’t want/need to model that level of detail, so Hirohito serves as a good-enough catch-all for the Imperialist Japanese Government (becoming a national spirit constitutional monarch if Japan goes democratic).

France had a similar number of PM but they are the leaders.

In fact, Japan now has the smallest number of possible leaders of all major powers.

 

[colonel Oink]

The best solution would be implementing two positions (Head of State and Head of Government like in HoI III), but without such an overhaul PMs should be leaders.

here`s an idea who the leaders of Japan (historical, Kodoha and democratic paths) should be and the differences between the paths.

• Keisuke Okada should be the leader at the 1936 startdate (Hiranuma Kiichirō in 1939)
• Hirohito should be represented by a national spirit like other monarchs but become the actual ruler with the Showa Restoration focus (Sadao Araki would become ruler with the Modern Shogunate). both would stay the ruler for the rest of the game.
• Taking the Purge the Kodoha path should unlock a set of decisions to change the leader (PM). Each (historical) leader would have different traits. The player would be able to rotate leaders for some PP cost. e.g. Tojo would be a wartime leader.
• Since The Showa Constitution focus would need to be changed or replaced, Democratic Japan should have a focus for the first free elction instead. The choice would be between Tetsu Katayama (Social Democratic), Saito Takao (Constitutional Democratic) and Kijuro Sidehara (Progressive). they should also provide different boons, but could only be changed via new election (every 4 years.).

What do you think about this idea?


France had a similar number of PM but they are the leaders.

In fact, Japan now has the smallest number of possible leaders of all major powers.

I agree with everything. However, in my opinion, Katayama can be completely excluded from this list, since at that historical period he was practically inactive, and he was not a prominent political figure. It is also worth reconsidering the choice of parties, since in fact two of them are already post-war.

 

[Fulmen]

The best solution would be implementing two positions (Head of State and Head of Government like in HoI III), but without such an overhaul PMs should be leaders.

Would mean more than twice the large portraits we have now. Not happening. If they went back to photos over portraits, sure, but that's not happening either.

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

I would hope that if the politics is ever redone. That you'll get something in the line of Hearts of Iron II where you had the ministers and the like.
You had the
Head of State
Head of Government
Foreign Minister
Armaments Minister
Etc.
I think that approach is better then the current system, with just 4 "parties" Dem. Fasc. Comm. Unaliged and three minister slots.

It was sort of intrestning because you couldn't change the head of state in constitutional monarchies, and in some both the Head of State and Head of Government where occupied by one person. It added flavor and if i recall you cabinet was something you did change one in a while, but in Hearts of Iron 4 you most of the time just stick with you first choice until the end of the game.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I agree with everything. However, in my opinion, Katayama can be completely excluded from this list, since at that historical period he was practically inactive, and he was not a prominent political figure.

Reasons to keep Katayama:
I. His portrait is already in the game, why waste it?
II. He was prime minister during the game's timeframe. (1947-48)
III. more choices in democratic elections. (historical Japan would always have the choice between multiple PM)

It is also worth reconsidering the choice of parties, since in fact two of them are already post-war.

The democratic path involves a civil war that would likely cause a major realignement of political parties. it seems better to use the names of historical post-war parties instead of completely fictional names.