<論説>民本主義論の終焉と二大政党制論の改造 : 蠟山政道のナショナル・デモクラシー論と二大政党制論

Abstract

本稿は、近年、日本における政治的自由主義論との関連で注目されている福沢諭吉から吉野作造につながる二大政党制論(<政治システム論>) の重要性を再確認しつつ、吉野作造の二大政党制論が以後どのように引きつがれるのかと言うことを蠟山政道の政治思想を手がかりに検討したものである。蠟山は基本的には吉野の二大政党制論の枠組みを継承し、英国労働党の動勢を参照しつつも、むしろそれゆえにこそ、吉野の既成政党(民政党) と社民勢力の連合政権構想から離反し、社民勢力対既成政党という二大政党制の勢力配置転換を構想することになった。蝋山はそれに向けて社会大衆党の勢力基盤拡大方策を模索するが、やがてその限界の自覚と外交政策をめぐる確執から近衛薪体制に接近することになる。だがそれは「革新」派と現状維持的構想の融合の上に立つ大正デモクラシー論の「転生」としての一面をもち、それゆえ、その立場から戦後民主制への提言が、限定的ではあれ、可能になった側面も存在した。

The theory on political system in prewar Japan has been generally dismissed so far. But a few scholars began to pay much attention to the importance of political liberalism concerning the political system.in modern Japan. Taking sides with that trend, this article is focused on Royama Masamichs theory on political systems (the two party system as in England) in prewar Japan. Royama, following Yoshino Sakuzo's theory on political liberalism in its outline, wished to innovate and reconstruct that system. Yoshinos plan for a two party system was based on the amicable relationship between the Shakaiminshyuto (the right wing of socialist force) and Minseito (the one of the established parties). So its success depended on whether or not Shakaiminshyuto would maintain the firm cooperation with Minseito for good. Therefore, as Minseito was moving away from Shakaiminshyuto, Royama came to recognize that Yoshino's plan went bankrupt. Royama intended to rearrange the power balance of the two party system by making Shakaitaishyuto (the coalition party of a few different socialist parties established in 1932) into the mainstay of that system. His plan succeeded to the extent that Shakaitaishyuto won 37 seats in the house of representatives in 1937, but not to the extent that it reshuffled the two party system and became the mainstay of that. So Royama began to make Shakaitaishyuto closer to pivotal Konoe Fumimaro (an offspring of the highest moble family and prime minister between 1937 and 1941) and build a coalition power with him. This power base has been regarded as the establishment of the Japanese tacist institution. But it might not be a facist institution as regarded before. It was not so different from the former coalition power. It somehow paved the way for further democratization of Japanese bureaucratic system in some points in the post war period. At least, it might set a stage for costing doubts on the legitimacy and efficiency of the rigid rule and domination by Japanese bureaucracy shortly after world war II.