<論説>再考・中野正剛「露探」疑惑 --政治における「嘘」とその波紋-- (特集 : 嘘)

Abstract

一九二六年(大正十五)三月、衆議院本会議で中野正剛(憲政会)が陸軍機密費の問題を取り上げ、田中義一(政友会総裁)の金銭疑惑を追及した。その後、今度は政友会の牧野良三が、中野とソ連との関わりを示唆する演説を議会で行った。近代政治史上の「嘘」として知られる中野の「露探」疑惑について、本稿では嘘の生成に至る経緯と、その影響に注目する。政友会の「嘘」は、アーレントのいう政治における「伝統的な嘘」(政敵を攻撃し真実を隠蔽するもの)であるとともに、中野の動向から憶測した予断から発生したものであった。さらに演説の余波は各所に及んだ。本稿では演説を契機として、中野の疑惑を証明するために、ハルピンのソ連領事館等へ協力者を侵入させて公文書盗取を試みた人物による新規発見の記録文書を取り上げ、アーレントが区分した「伝統的な嘘」と「現代的な嘘」(自ら発した嘘を真実と混同するもの)の連続性を考察する。

In March 1926, Nakano Seigō 中野正剛 of the Kenseikai 憲政会 raised the issue of secret army funds at a plenary session of the House of Representatives and pursued allegations of misuse of funds by Tanaka Giichi 田中義一, President of the Seiyūkai 政友会. Later, Makino Ryōzō 牧野良三, also from the Seiyūkai, gave a speech in the assembly suggesting Nakano's involvement with the Soviet Union. The allegations involving Nakano, which are known as the “Russian spy” (rotan 露探) and which began with Makino's speech, are known as one of the most obvious “lies” in Japan's modern political history. This paper will focus on the circumstances that led to the creation of the lie and the impact on this allegation. The genesis of the “lie” involving Nakano Seigō was trivial. It is difficult to determine whether the person who told the story was aware that it was a lie. The remarks made by Kubota Eikichi 久保田榮一 that started the suspicions were unsubstantiated. However, Kubota may have simply believed that he was recording what he heard in prison in Russia. Shiga Watari 志賀和多利 of the Seiyūkai, who pursued the Nakano matter may have simply used Kubota's story as impetus to question the authorities, leading them to crack down on Nakano. Nakano was so angered that he delivered a speech in the Diet pursuing the issue of secret funds and denouncing Tanaka Giichi. The Seiyūkai, however, deteremined that due to Nakano's attack on the leader of their party, the allegations against Nakano were in fact more serious. Seiyūkai representive Makino Ryōzō, while cleverly avoiding categorical statements, made a speech in the Diet attempting to plant suspicion about Nakano's “Russian spy.” However, because he failed to gather sufficient evidence, his claims could not be verified. The public ridiculed the claims made by Makino and the Seiyūkai as “lies.” Notably, Makino himself did not consider the content of his speeches to be the “truth.” This was due to a self-awareness of the “tradition of political lies, ” or, alternatively, an allegiance to the idea of “truth” could be disproved. The Seiyūkai's “lie” was not only the result of speculation aroused by Nakano's actions, but also by what Arendt called “the tradition of political lying, ” which was to attack one's political opponents and conceal the truth. The impact of the speech, however, reached an unexpected level. Aroused by Makino's claims, newspaper reporter Ōtsuka Ryōkichi 大塚良吉 took the lead in gathering evidence at the risk of his own life in an effort to expose Nakano's guilt. Ōtsuka's actions eventually led to the involvement of the state authorities, the police and prosecutors. What occupied Ōtsuka's mind was not a “lie” but a “sense of crisis” based on thepremise of Nakano's relationship with the Soviet Communist Party. For Ōtsuka, the lie was no longer a “lie.” Despite his obsessive collecting of evidence in Harbin, the evidence Ōtsuka had gathered was not recognized as such. The definitive reason why the police and prosecutors did not file charges against Nakano is unclear. However, it is likely that the police and prosecutors were unable to prove in public the authenticity of confidential information obtained through illegal means in a foreign country and the inability to protect the informant. However, there are indications that the police had in fact acted and the prosecutors had gathered evidence. More than a decade later, Nakano criticized the government during World War II and was driven to commit suicide. Experts who have examined Nakano's final days point to the possibility that when the wartime Tōjō government felt the need to shut down Nakano's parliamentary activities, the earlier “Russian spy” allegations resurfaced. The view that Nakano was forced to choose honor before the allegations were tranformed into “truth” reminds us of “lies” in politics and their ripple effects̶in this case, the depth of the crime. If the presumptios regarding Nakano's “Russian spy” justified state repression beyond the bounds of law and order, the process surrounding the series of allegations would illustrate the transformation of the “tradition of political lying, ” in which political opponents are attacked and the truth concealed, tells of the shift to the acceptace of “modern organised lying” of the state's distorted decisions that obliterate the boundary between lies and truth.