Connect with us

Features

The Rise of Takaichi

Published

on

Japan PM Sanae Takaichi after election (ABC News)

Her victory is remarkable, and yet, beyond the arithmetic of seats, it is the audacity, unpredictability, and sheer strategic opportunism of Sanae Takaichi that has unsettled the conventions of Japanese politics. Japan now confronts the uncharted waters of a first female prime minister wielding a super-majority in the lower house, an electoral outcome amplified by the external pressures of China’s escalating intimidation. Prior to the election, Takaichi’s unequivocal position on Taiwan—declaring that a Chinese attack could constitute an existential threat justifying Japan’s right to collective self-defence—drew from Beijing a statement of unmistakable ferocity: “If Japan insists on this path, there will be consequences… heads will roll.” Yet the electorate’s verdict on 8 February 2026 was unequivocal: a decisive rejection of external coercion and an affirmation of Japan’s strategic autonomy. The LDP’s triumph, in this sense, is less an expression of ideological conformity than a popular sanction for audacious leadership in a period of geopolitical uncertainty.

Takaichi’s ascent is best understood through the lens of calculated audacity, tempered by a comprehension of domestic legitimacy that few of her contemporaries possess. During her brief tenure prior to the election, she orchestrated a snap lower house contest merely months after assuming office, exploiting her personal popularity and the fragility of opposition coalitions. Unlike predecessors who relied on incrementalism and cautious negotiation within the inherited confines of party politics, Takaichi maneuvered with precision, converting popular concern over regional security and economic stagnation into tangible parliamentary authority. The coalescence of public anxiety, amplified by Chinese threats, and her own assertive persona produced a political synergy rarely witnessed in postwar Japan.

Central to understanding her political strategy is her treatment of national security and sovereignty. Takaichi’s articulation of Japan’s response to a hypothetical Chinese aggression against Taiwan was neither rhetorical flourish nor casual posturing. Framing such a scenario as a “survival-threatening situation” constitutes a profound redefinition of Japanese strategic calculus, signaling a willingness to operationalise collective self-defence in ways previously avoided by postwar administrations. The Xi administration’s reaction—including restrictions on Japanese exports, delays in resuming seafood imports, and threats against commercial and civilian actors—unintentionally demonstrated the effectiveness of her approach: coercion produced cohesion rather than capitulation. Japanese voters, perceiving both the immediacy of threat and the clarity of leadership, rewarded decisiveness. The result was a super-majority capable of reshaping the constitutional and defence architecture of the nation.

This electoral outcome cannot be understood without reference to the ideological continuity and rupture within the LDP itself. Takaichi inherits a party long fractured by internal factionalism, episodic scandals, and the occasional misjudgment of public sentiment. Yet her rise also represents the maturation of a distinct right-of-centre ethos: one that blends assertive national sovereignty, moderate economic populism, and strategic conservatism. By appealing simultaneously to conservative voters, disillusioned younger demographics, and those unsettled by regional volatility, she achieved a political synthesis that previous leaders, including Fumio Kishida and Shigeru Ishiba, failed to materialize. The resulting super-majority is an institutional instrument for the pursuit of substantive policy transformation.

Takaichi’s domestic strategy demonstrates a sophisticated comprehension of the symbiosis between economic policy, social stability, and political legitimacy. The promise of a two-year freeze on the consumption tax for foodstuffs, despite its partial ambiguity, has served both as tangible reassurance to voters and a symbolic statement of attentiveness to middle-class anxieties. Inflation, stagnant wages, and a protracted demographic decline have generated fertile ground for popular discontent, and Takaichi’s ability to frame fiscal intervention as both pragmatic and responsible has resonated deeply. Similarly, her attention to underemployment, particularly the activation of latent female labour, demonstrates an appreciation for structural reform rather than performative gender politics: expanding workforce participation is framed as an economic necessity, not a symbolic gesture.

Her approach to defence and international relations further highlights her strategic dexterity. The 2026 defence budget, reaching 9.04 trillion yen, the establishment of advanced missile capabilities, and the formation of a Space Operations Squadron reflect a commitment to operationalising Japan’s deterrent capabilities without abandoning domestic legitimacy. Takaichi has shown restraint in presentation while signaling determination in substance. She avoids ideological maximalism; her stated aim is not militarism for its own sake but the assertion of national interest, particularly in a context of declining U.S. relative hegemony and assertive Chinese manoeuvres. Takaichi appears to internalize the balance between deterrence and diplomacy in East Asian geopolitics, cultivating both alliance cohesion and autonomous capability. Her proposed constitutional revision, targeting Article 9, must therefore be read as a calibrated adjustment to legal frameworks rather than an impulsive repudiation of pacifist principles, though the implications are inevitably destabilizing from a regional perspective.

The historical dimension of her politics is equally consequential. Takaichi’s association with visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, her questioning of historical narratives surrounding wartime atrocities, and her engagement with revisionist historiography are not merely symbolic gestures but constitute deliberate ideological positioning within Japan’s right-wing spectrum.

Japanese politics is no exception when it comes to the function of historical narrative as both ethical compass and instrument of legitimacy: Takaichi’s actions signal continuity with a nationalist interpretation of sovereignty while asserting moral authority over historical memory. This strategic management of memory intersects with her security agenda, particularly regarding Taiwan and the East China Sea, allowing her to mobilize domestic consensus while projecting resolve externally.

The Chinese reaction, predictably alarmed and often hyperbolic, reflects the disjuncture between external expectation and domestic reality. Beijing’s characterization of Takaichi as an existential threat to regional peace, employing metaphors such as the opening of Pandora’s Box, misinterprets the domestic calculation. Takaichi’s popularity did not surge in spite of China’s pressure but because of it; the electorate rewarded the demonstration of agency against perceived coercion. The Xi administration’s misjudgment, compounded by a declining cadre of officials competent in Japanese affairs, illustrates the structural asymmetries that Takaichi has been able to exploit: external intimidation, when poorly calibrated, functions as political accelerant. Japan’s electorate, operating with acute awareness of both historical precedent and contemporary vulnerability, effectively weaponized Chinese miscalculation.

Fiscal policy, too, serves as an instrument of political consolidation. The tension between her proposed consumption tax adjustments and the imperatives of fiscal responsibility illustrates the deliberate ambiguity with which Takaichi operates: she signals responsiveness to popular needs while retaining sufficient flexibility to negotiate market and institutional constraints. Economists note that the potential reduction in revenue is significant, yet her credibility rests in her capacity to convince voters that the measures are temporary, targeted, and strategically justified. Here, the interplay between domestic politics and international market perception is critical: Takaichi steers both the expectations of Japanese citizens and the anxieties of global investors, demonstrating a rare fluency in multi-layered policy signaling.

Her coalition management demonstrates a keen strategic instinct. By maintaining the alliance with the Japan Innovation Party even after securing a super-majority, she projects an image of moderation while advancing audacious policies. This delicate balancing act between consolidation and inclusion reveals a grasp of the reality that commanding numbers in parliament does not equate to unfettered authority: in Japan, procedural legitimacy and coalition cohesion remain crucial, and symbolic consensus continues to carry significant cultural and institutional weight.

Yet, perhaps the most striking element of Takaichi’s victory is the extent to which it has redefined the interface between domestic politics and regional geopolitics. By explicitly linking Taiwan to Japan’s collective self-defence framework, she has re-framed public understanding of regional security, converting existential anxiety into political capital. Chinese rhetoric, at times bordering on the explicitly menacing, highlights the efficacy of this strategy: the invocation of direct consequences and the threat of physical reprisal amplified domestic perceptions of threat, producing a rare alignment of public opinion with executive strategy. In this sense, Takaichi operates not merely as a domestic politician but as a conductor of transnational strategic sentiment, demonstrating an acute awareness of perception, risk, and leverage that surpasses the capacity of many predecessors. It is a quintessentially Machiavellian maneuver, executed with Japanese political sophistication rather than European moral theorisation. Therefore, the rise of Sanae Takaichi represents more than the triumph of a single politician: it signals a profound re-calibration of the Japanese political order.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

on

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Continue Reading

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

on

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

on

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

Continue Reading

Trending