My ‘Epilogue’ of Mr Uda’s Book ‘Obligation to Dissent: Why Organization Fails’ – 6 (1)

→Japanese

I share with you the 6th section of my ‘Epilogue’ of the new book ‘Obligation to Dissent: Why Organizations Fails’ by Mr. Sakon Uda, who served Project Manager of NAIIC.

Epilogue, ‘Obligation to Dissent’: What We Citizens Should Do Now
Kiyoshi Kurokawa, Chair of the National Diet of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC)

6. What is accountability? (1)

Many major corporations and governmental offices in Japan tend to firmly maintain order based on the rigid vertical relations between organizations and individuals, which is considered common sense in Japan. Even if this results in illogical or unfair situations at times, most people continue to follow these rules out of the belief that their companies will last forever and they must hold onto their jobs no matter what.

After Japan was defeated in World War II (WWII), the nation regained its confidence due to high economic growth in the Cold-War period but this gradually hardened into arrogance. The Iron Triangle of government, industry and bureaucracy, as well as academia and media formed the pillars of a structure of irresponsibility. This was built upon the myth of the infallibility of the bureaucracy, which was the same framework during WWⅡ.

In such a society, those at the top in positions of power and responsibility often act as if the issues they must face are someone else’s problems. Shirking their responsibilities, they refrain from speaking up as they should. They hold the misguided belief that there is nothing they can do about these issues. This mindset formed the background to the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident.

This book by Mr. Uda sharply points out that each individual who belongs to an organization must think about and deal with this problem. It would be a good reference book for people who work in large organizations, such as major companies and bureaucracies to reflect upon.

During these past twenty years, the word “accountability” has been used frequently. For some reason, in Japanese the term is translated as the “responsibility to explain,” which is a phrase that does not express the same level of seriousness. It is an example of the meaning being ‘lost in translation’ when translated from a foreign word into Japanese. In English, the meaning of “accountability” is stronger than mere responsibility, going one step further to indicate the act of carrying out the responsibility of the position. James C. Collins also touches upon this in How the Mighty Fall (1). This is a point that I have brought up numerously during the NAIIC press conferences. I have often inquired just how those in power in Japanese society plan to take responsibility when they fail to carry out the work they were appointed to do.

Kiyoshi Yamamoto has written an academic book on accountability, entitled Thinking About Accountability- Why it Became “Responsibility to Explain”(in Japanese, published in February 2013) (2). Issues in Japanese society, such as the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Olympus scandal, and bullying in Japanese schools prompted Mr. Yamamoto to write this book. He points out that the decision of the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (NINJAL) to translate accountability to “the responsibility to explain” had a large impact.

In the first chapter of this book, he draws attention to the high value placed on accountability in the governance in the US. He points out that this is signified by the renaming of the General Accounting Office (GAO), which is under the authority of Congress, to the Government Accountability Office in 2004. In chapter two, he reviews the reasons why accountability was translated in Japan to mean “the responsibility to explain.” In the eighth chapter, he goes on to examine accountability in Japanese society, taking into consideration the particular elements of the social fabric. Here, similar to Professor Chie Nakane, he discusses the vagueness of the role of responsibility within Japanese social and power structures. Furthermore, he argues that the disciplinary aspect of the word accountability is rarely used in the responsibility to explain. In the Chinese language, which does not have katakana characters and only uses kanji, accountability is translated as literally, “questioning responsibility.” He argues that the Fukushima nuclear accident and WWII were typical cases in Japan, in which responsibility was vague and never pursued. He cites Masahiro Shinoda and also looks at the relationship between public media and politics, for example, highlighting the differences between NHK and the BBC.

–To be continued.

References:
1. Jim Collins, (2009). How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In. New York: Harper Collins. [Translated into Japanese by Yoichi Yamaoka (2010)].
2. Kiyoshi Yamamoto, (2013). Thinking About Accountability- Why it Became “Responsibility to Explain” [In Japanese]. NTT Publishing.