Chapter 1: What the 3 a.m. “Briefing” Really Revealed

At around 3 a.m., Prime Minister Takaichi held a briefing at the Kantei to prepare for Diet questions. Deputy Foreign Minister Ayano Kunimitsu posted about it on X, claiming that “the opposition submitted their questions too late.” However, that statement was factually incorrect. The opposition parties had already submitted their questions by the official deadline—noon, two days earlier.

Kunimitsu later deleted the post, apologized for the misunderstanding, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Kihara also admitted that the claim was based on false information. This episode—what became known as the “3 a.m. study session”—revealed something deeper about Japan’s political culture: a tendency to resent being questioned at all.

Witnessing this, I felt a strong sense of unease and shared the following post on X, questioning why such attitudes are tolerated in a democracy.

What struck me was how the government’s narrative—blaming the “lateness” of question submissions—felt fundamentally at odds with the democratic norms of other nations. So, how do mature democracies actually handle questions and accountability?

Chapter 2: In Mature Democracies, Governments Rarely Hide Behind “Question Notices”

In most capitalist democracies, it is extremely rare for a governing party to excuse itself by blaming the opposition for “late question submissions.” The essence of legislative oversight lies precisely in the ability to respond— even when unprepared. That ability is not just a political skill, but the very muscle of democracy.

In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister faces unscripted questions every week during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). Questions are not disclosed in full beforehand, and the exchanges are broadcast live across the nation. This ritual of spontaneous accountability is one of the cornerstones of British democracy.

Canada and Australia also hold similar sessions known as Question Period and Question Time. Ministers are expected to answer on the spot; “we weren’t ready” is not an acceptable excuse. In fact, being unable to respond spontaneously is often seen as a sign of political weakness.

In the United States, the same democratic principle is expressed through Congressional Hearings. Lawmakers summon senior officials and corporate executives, questioning them freely—often without prior notice. Bureaucrats do not read pre-approved scripts; the credibility of leaders is tested by how they answer in real time.

The U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) defines the essence of oversight as “the ability of the executive branch to explain itself under unanticipated questioning.” In that sense, Japan’s bureaucratic culture of exhaustive preparation represents a reversal of this democratic ideal.

In these democracies, value is placed not on “preparing for questions,” but on “answering when asked.” That distinction defines political maturity. When a society normalizes excuses like “the notice was late,” politicians grow afraid of improvisation— and citizens, in turn, grow accustomed to pre-scripted performances. Democracy doesn’t collapse overnight; it quietly withers away.

Sources:
UK Parliament – Prime Minister’s Questions
Parliament of Canada – Question Period
Parliament of Australia – Question Time
U.S. Congressional Research Service – Congressional Oversight Manual

Chapter 3: What It Means to “Strangle” Democracy

Democracy is, by nature, inconvenient. It takes time, disagreements arise, and the executive cannot always control the tempo. Yet that very inconvenience is what prevents the abuse of power.

When governments begin to narrow questioning in the name of “efficiency” or “saving face,” legislatures quickly turn into stages for pre-scripted performances. Bureaucrats draft the lines, politicians read them, and the public accepts it as the norm. This is not democracy—it is quiet suffocation.

In Japan, avoiding verbal missteps is often mistaken for political competence. But in healthy democracies, the true measure of leadership lies in the ability to respond in one’s own words. Politics is not about reading from a script; it is about being accountable in real time.

However, in today’s Japan, bureaucrats write the answers and politicians merely perform them. When words no longer carry the speaker’s conviction, politics loses its vitality— and citizens, accustomed to that hollowness, cease demanding authenticity.

It is not only dictators who strangle democracy —
the silence of citizens who look away weakens it just as surely.
(A reflection by the author, rooted in democratic thought)

Those who defend the “late question notice” narrative may not realize it, but they are quietly surrendering their own right to question power. They believe they are protecting “their government,” when in truth, they are tightening the rope around democracy itself.

Democracy does not die in chaos. It dies in silence.
— Inspired by Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (2018)