近代日本农业问题与政党内阁的农业政策：浅析政党政治失败重要原因之一

【作者】 文春美；

【导师】 武寅；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 日本史， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 关于日本二战前政党政治失败、军部法西斯上台问题,中国日本史学界主流观点必然会提到《明治宪法体制》的结构性制约因素。就像有些学者主张“日本法西斯主义本身就是日本式现代化的必然结局”。但是二战前政党政治走向崩溃是历史的必然吗?为什么经历了工业化、经济大发展的大正民主主义时期,“发展中的民主体制”并没有发展成为“巩固民主”却走向崩溃,建立起军部法西斯的威权主义体制?笔者带着这些问题意识,运用“民主巩固”、“社会稳定”、“农民学”等政治学理论,结合历史学的实证方法,对原敬政友会内阁到犬养毅政友会内阁(1918-1932年)时期,即政党政治确立期的农业政策进行系统的分析。笔者的观点是政体转型的政治过程不是受制于总体静态结构的因果关系,而是一个高度不确定的过程。也就是说制度是死的,人是活的,《明治宪法体制》的静态结构的制约因素并不是政党政治失败的根本原因,民主是否能够巩固,往往是与民主势力的代表,即政党内阁制定的政策和政党领袖的决策能否获得民众支持有着直接关系。1918-1932年政党政治确立期可分为两个时期,1918年9月-1922年6月的政友会内阁时期和1924年6月-1932年5月,除了短暂的两届政友会内阁(1927年4月-1929年7月的田中义一内阁;1931年12月-1932年5月犬养毅内阁)之外,一直由宪政会、民政党长期执政时期。从1918年9月-1922年6月建立的原敬和高桥是清政友会内阁时期,发生了米价跌落、租佃纠纷件数显著增加等,暴露出深刻的农业危机,农业问题日益成为一个社会焦点问题。然而包括执政党、在野党在内的所有政党,对待农村问题都比较消极,农村问题在帝国议会中并没有成为重要议题。因“米骚动”而上台的原敬内阁出台的包括修订《米谷法》、设置小作制度调查委员会等农业政策,并不是重视农业问题,而是为了保障城市居民获得低廉的粮食。而后继的高桥是清内阁的农业政策完全沿袭了原敬内阁时期的农业政策。政友会内阁下台后建立的非政党内阁时期,政友会和宪政会才开始重视农业问题,主要围绕土地问题、市町村义务教育费国库负担、救济地方财政等三个方面提出了各自的主张。关于救济地方财政问题,政友会主张“地租交付地方”,市町村义务教育费半额国库负担,而宪政会与之对抗,主张“减轻地租”20%,市町村义务教育费全额国库负担。这样,增加义务教师费国库负担问题,与税制整理问题紧密联系在一起。关于土地问题,政友会主张实行自耕农创设维持政策,而宪政会、民政党侧重于制定保护佃农佃耕权的《小作法》和保障佃农团结权的《小作组合法》。宪政会、民政党执政时期(1924年6月-1931年12月),主要根据《小作调停法》致力于调停租佃争议。始终贯彻自由放任主义原则的《小作调停法》,仍然以《民法》和小作惯例作为争议调停的法律依据,所以租佃关系不可能有多少改善,也不能从根本上消除租佃纠纷。不制定《小作组合法》,确保和维护佃农的团结权,那么佃农的基本权益也就不可能得到充分的保障,就不能以同等身份与地主对等地谈判,这样改善佃农的耕种条件,实际上也很困难。宪政会、民政党内阁时期虽然多次尝试制定保护佃农佃耕权的《小作法》未获得贵族院的通过变为废案。民政党主张的小学教师工资全额国库负担,到1931年时也只不过才完成半额的目标。由于“昭和恐慌”的打击和财源的严重不足,使得两党提出的农村救济政策都归于失败。通过分析政友会和宪政会、民政党内阁时期的农业政策,可以看出政友会与宪政会、民政党完全继承了提高农业产量,扩大农业利益的明治农政的思维模式。两党的农业政策的对立,只不过是直接还是间接减轻农民负担这一技术性的问题。政友会主张把7400万日元地税直接交付市町村,而宪政会则主张通过增加国库负担2000万来减轻农民的负担。因此,本文认为政党政治崩溃,固然有其复杂的因素综合作用的结果,但是不能否认政党在农业政策上的严重失误和农业立法等方面的民主化改革失败,也就是在制度层面上民主主义没有得到巩固是政党政治失败的一个重要原因。民众特别是农民对民主彻底失望,城市中小工商业者和农民宁愿推翻无效率的民主政体,选择集权的军部威权主义体制。政党内阁没有下大力气解决日本近代化发展过程中,工业化的急速发展和农业发展的停滞不前的根本矛盾,农村反而成为转嫁危机的场所。民众对1932年“五·一五”事件后成立的斋藤实内阁不仅没有反对或抵制,反而认为“举国一致”内阁更加适合解决农村问题。归根结底政党政治的失败在于失去民心,特别是失去占一半以上人口的农民支持所导致。实际上最终是由包括农民在内的广大民众推翻了政党政治,把政权交付了军部法西斯。日本二战前的大正民主主义时期的短暂的政党政治的历史,又一次证明“水能载舟也能覆舟”的亘古不变的道理。更多还原

【Abstract】 Meiji Constitution structure will be bound to mention in mainstreaming view of Japanese history scholars in China when talking about the failure of Party Politics and Military Fascism came into power before World WarⅡ. Some scholars advocate that Japanese Military Fascism is the natural consequence of Japanese modernization. However, was the collapse of Party Politics before WWⅡalso the necessity of historical development? Japan experienced the period of industrialization and economic boom during Taisho Democracy. Why“developing democratic”did not become“democratic consolidation”, but step into collapse instead, and then established the authoritarian regime of Military Fascism?With these questions, the author made a systematically analysis toward agricultural policy during the period of Seiyukai Hara and Inukai Tsuyoshi Cabinet (1918-1923). This period is also called establishing time of Party Politics. In this research, the author uses some political theories, such as“democratic consolidation”,“social stability”,“Peasantology”, etc, combining with the methods of positivist approach of history.The author’s standpoint is that the political process of regime transformation is not subject to causation correlation of overall static structure. Instead, it is a highly uncertain process which means the constraints of static structure of Meiji Constitution structure is not the root cause for the failure of Party Politics. The system cannot be changed, but a person is flexible. Whether democracy is consolidated or not depends upon the representatives of democratic forces. In other words, it directly depends upon whether or not the policies and decisions made by party cabinet and leaders can be supported by populace.During the period of Seiyukai Takahashi Korekiyo and Hara Cabinet, from September 1918 to June 1922, the rice price fell and the number of tenancy dispute increased obviously which showed a significant agricultural crisis. Gradually, the agricultural problems became a social focal issue. Even so, all of the parties including party in power and out-parties took negative attitudes toward rural issues, and it was not discussed as an important issue in Imperial Senate. Hara Cabinet came into power because of“rice riots of 1918”, but the agricultural policies they made, such as Law of Grain revised edition and establishing Sharecropping Research Committee, did not demonstrate they emphasized agricultural problems. They just wanted to guarantee the low price of food in city. The following Takahashi Korekiyo Cabinet completely inherited the agricultural policies made by Hara Cabinet.After the abdication of Seiyukai Cabinet, the period of Non-partisan Cabinet was established. Until then, Seiyukai and Kenseikai started to focus on the agricultural problems. They stated their own opinions in three aspects: land issues, state contribution for municipalities’cost of compulsory education and giving relief to local government finance. With respect to giving relief to local government finance, Seiyukai advocated transferring of land tax to local government and half the state contribution for municipalities’cost of compulsory education. But Kenseikai opposed, they claimed that land tax rate had a 20% decrease and total state contribution for municipalities’cost of compulsory education. In this way, the issues of increasing state contribution for cost of compulsory education and taxation readjustment are tightly connected together. As for the land issues, Seiyukai stood for maintaining self-cultivated agricultural policy establishment, but Kenseikai·Minseito preferred to set up Law of Tenants and Law of Tenant Union in order to protect tenants’rights of cultivation and organization. Kenseikai·Minseito came into power from June 1924 to December 1931. The governor conciliated tenancy disputes mainly based on Tenancy Conciliation Law of 1924. The Act carried through on the principle of laisser‐faire, and took Civil Code and Customary Tenants as the legal basis of dispute mediation. So, it is impossible to improve the tenancy relationship, not to mention eradication of tenancy disputes. The sharecropper’s right to organize cannot be ensured and protected if the Law of Tenant Union was not established. They cannot equally negotiate with landowners if the basic rights cannot be truly guaranteed. Actually, it was also very difficult to improve the sharecropper’s cultivating conditions. Kenseikai·Minseito Cabinet tried so many times to establish Law of Tenants to protect sharecropper’s cultivation right, but the bill became void because it was not passed by House of Lords. The total state contribution for cost of compulsory education advocated by Minseito only achieved half of its goal by 1931. Due to the blow of“Showa financial crisis”and shortage of financial resource, all the rural relief policies raised by two parties were failed in the end.It shows that Seiyukai and Kenseikai completely inherited the thinking pattern of agricultural administration Meizi which were increasing agricultural production and enlarging agricultural profits through the analysis of the agricultural policies during the period of Seiyukai and Kenseikai·Minseito Cabinet. The policies raised by two parties were barely political strategies, and the confrontations between two parties were merely technical issues on reducing the sharecropper’s burden directly or indirectly. Seiyukai advocated distributing 74 million yen of land rent to local government, and Kenseikai preferred that the state contribution increased 20 million yen to reduce sharecropper’s burden.Therefore, there were lots of comprehensive effects of complicated factors resulted the collapse of Party Politics. The serious mistakes on agriculture policies made by Parties and the failure of democratic reform on agricultural legislation were important reasons for collapse of Party Politics which means democracy was not consolidated on system level. The populaces, especially sharecroppers, were bitterly disappointed toward democracy. The entrepreneurs and sharecroppers rather to overthrow the inefficient democratic regime and choose centralized military authoritarian regime. Japanese Party Cabinet did not try to solve the fundamental contradiction between the fast development of industrialization and the stagnation of agricultural development in the process of modern development. The rural areas became a place of crisis export instead. The populace did not oppose or resist Minoru Saito Cabinet formed after May 15 Incident in 1932. On the contrary, they considered National Government as a more suitable system to solve rural problems. After all, the reason for the failure of Party Politics is losing the support of the people, especially losing the support of sharecroppers who were more than half of the population. Actually, it was the general public including sharecroppers that overthrow Party Politics and granted the political power to Military Fascism.The short history of Party Politics during the period of Taisho Democracy before World WarⅡdemonstrates again an everlasting truth which is the water that bears the boat is the same that swallows it up.更多还原