Party Leaders’ Debates in Diet: 45 Minutes Insufficient to Dig Deep into Policies

Editorial

14:59 JST, May 21, 2026

The purpose of debate between party leaders is supposed to be for the prime minister and opposition leaders to discuss the nation’s fundamental policies from a broad perspective and invigorate Diet debate.

However, with as many as six party leaders taking the podium one after another in a short time, the discussion is unlikely to be in-depth.

A debate between party leaders was held. For Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, this was her second such debate — following the one in November last year — and her first during the current Diet session.

However, the total debate time was only 45 minutes. Furthermore, as a result of the House of Representatives election in February, the number of opposition parties that meet the eligibility requirement for the debate — holding at least 10 seats in either the lower house or the House of Councillors — increased to a record six.

The longest time allotted, based on the number of seats, was 12 minutes for Democratic Party for the People leader Yuichiro Tamaki, while the shortest was three minutes for Team Mirai leader Takahiro Anno.

When the party leaders’ debate system was first introduced in 2000, the session lasted 40 minutes and involved three party leaders. In today’s multiparty Diet, it is unrealistic for six party leaders to engage in a question-and-answer session in roughly the same amount of time.

The ruling and opposition parties need to consider extending the time allotted. If the burden on the prime minister is heavy, they should consider splitting the debate over two days.

More importantly, the leaders’ debate cannot be said to have gone deep enough.

Regarding subsidies for fuel costs such as for gasoline, Tamaki pointed out that there are limits to continuing massive spending, saying, “It’s also important for the government to present an exit strategy.” Specifically, he proposed a phased reduction of subsidy amounts.

Takaichi expressed her understanding, saying that she “takes [this] seriously.”

Since subsidies for gasoline bills encourage consumption amid ongoing concerns about oil supply, they should be curtailed.

Tamaki, who previously called for lowering gasoline prices by abolishing the provisional gasoline tax surcharge, has now had to insist on curbing consumption. This likely indicates just how severe supply concerns have become.

Meanwhile, as a measure to combat rising prices, Tamaki called for ¥50,000 cash benefits to low- and middle-income workers without addressing a specific funding source. If he is going to call for expanded benefits, isn’t it the duty of a responsible political party to specify a funding source?

Regarding the compilation of a supplementary budget, Junya Ogawa, the leader of the Centrist Reform Alliance, demanded that the budget be covered by such means as drawing on government funds rather than relying on deficit-financing government bonds.

Takaichi only said that the government would “restrain the issuance [of deficit-financing government bonds] as much as possible,” but the discussion did not delve into further details.

Representatives from the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan and Komeito, both of which are now composed of upper house lawmakers, also participated in the debate. Many people likely found it odd that even though members of the CDPJ and Komeito have formed the CRA in the lower house, the three parties engaged in the debate separately.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, May 21, 2026)