Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

In the runup to the 2020 Olympic Games, Abe Shinzo was at the helm of new surveillance policies that were meant to ensure “The safest Japan in the world”. This paper evaluates the long term effects of these and other surveillance policies and their implications for the Kishida-government.

Paper long abstract:

In 2012 Japan received the opportunity to host the 2020 Olympic Games, causing the Abe administration to draft a string of surveillance legislation and policies intended to keep all involved in these events safe, creating the “safest Japan in the world”. Grassroots movements, activists and legal experts however expressed concerns that these surveillance measures were not proportionate to the threats an international event faces, claiming the Abe government had ulterior motives for implementing these regulations.

For the 2021 Olympic Games, the surveillance legislation remained in place and was even supplemented with new health surveillance measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the end, the Olympic Games took place without any international spectators, save for international media representation. This means that the severity of measures and legislation intended for short-term foreign interference has mostly been implemented long-term on the domestic population, creating a massive discrepancy that the Japanese government has refused to alter or even address.

During the Abe administration, the Japanese government has shifted away from liberal democratic norms, pushing surveillance legislation through parliament without adequate debate or oversight. Prime Minister Kishida inherited these policies and legislation, and has seemingly subsumed them in his “Vision for Peace”. While one of the main components of this vision is strengthening Japan’s security, the haphazard way in which these measures have been implemented will not have the desired effect. The new regulations implemented because of the Olympic Games are the newest in a line of increasingly invasive measures focussed especially on minority citizens and foreigners. In fact, because of the stance of the Japanese government on these kinds of surveillance, their impact is more likely to be felt in the diminishing of human rights, than in security.

This paper shows that the Japanese government’s struggle to implement proportionate surveillance measures betrays its reluctance to commit to security for its citizens, displaying a wish for social control. In addition, the aim to increase surveillance even in domestic context should be seen as an indication of the government’s shifting ideals regarding state surveillance, which has consequences that reach far wider than just one event.