Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in a televised message recently that he hoped to see a revised version of the country's constitution take effect from 2020.
Such a plan would mark the first time since the end of Word War II that Japan's pacifist charter will be changed.
Some of the prime minister's recent remarks on revisions to the constitution were based around the idea that the current charter makes no mention of Japan's Self-Defense Forces (SDF).
As such, Abe and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party's ongoing push to expand the operational scope of the SDF is constitutionally unsound, as the premier himself has intimated and legal experts attested.
But while the prime minister plans to forge ahead with parliamentary debate to forward the issue and use his ruling bloc's majority to pave the way for the necessary legislation to be passed, should Abe's goal go as far as a national referendum, the Japanese peace-loving public may prove to be a monumental stumbling block.
"The constitution is part of our national identity and since the end of the war Japan has been a peaceful country and has consistently spread this message to the world," Arisa Nagai, a doctoral student studying at Chou University's faculty of law, told Xinhua.
"The younger generations here will inherit whatever fundamental changes occur in Japan and as the country has enjoyed peace for the past seven decades, I don't see the need to change the constitution," the 27-year-old said, adding that the majority of her peers and professors felt the same way and would proactively stand against the move.
Youngsters in Japan have long been regarded as being somewhat apathetic towards politics, but Abe's move to force contentious security legislation through parliament and into law stirred a political youth movement that also feels Japan should uphold its pacifist stance.
A group called Students Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy (SEALDs) is one of the main organizers of demonstrations and rallies at the Diet building in Tokyo, before, during and after the controversial war bills were forced into law.
The group's physical numbers and sizable digital footprint on social media sites helped reverse the notion here that young people are not interested in politics and the group continues to push its message that Japan needs to adhere to its pacifist ways and be wary of a government that has a tendency to make unilateral decisions that may not be in the best interests of the public.
"We've proven that young people in Japan have a voice and we mobilized tens of thousands of young people to demonstrate against the security legislation both physically and digitally," Tetsuya Murata, a senior member of SEALDs, told Xinhua.
"This time around it's more serious as Prime Minister Abe may now be looking to change Article 9 of the constitution. We firmly stand against this and will be rallying support again in the months to come, with our message again being that Abe's government sometimes uses undemocratic tactics to push its own agenda," said Murata.
Opposition parties, civic groups, legal experts, scholars, political watchers and individuals, spanning the length and breadth of the country have resoundingly called for Article 9 of the constitution to be upheld in recent days.
At present, Article 9 states that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."
It goes on to state that... "land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."
It is these words that have ensured that until recently Japan's forces had maintained only a defensive posture, but a reinterpretation by the government saw the forces' operational scope widened to the point that now certain activities that are not wholly defensive in nature may be deemed unconstitutional.
But experts on the matter have said that changing the constitution to catch up with the government's military drive is not only in itself a gray area constitutionally, but a possible backwards move in terms of how far Japan has come since World War II and how peaceful virtues are now the fabric of society.
"The browbeating in parliament to force the (security) legislation into law was one thing, but fundamentally changing the nation's charter for the first time ever, would be a completely different proposition," Koichi Ishikawa, a political commentator and senior research fellow affiliated to Tokyo's International Christian University (ICU) told Xinhua.
"The change Abe is intending will see Japan turn its back on its virtuous post-war pacifist ways - norms and values that have become the bedrock of Japanese society since the end of the war - and revisit a militaristic past that ended very badly for Japan," Ishikawa said, adding that public would ultimately decide the fate of the constitution, not the prime minister.
Ishikawa's sentiments have been echoed in the voices of many, including those that survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, known as Hibakusha, that ultimately brought an end to the war, and their relatives who were also deeply scarred by the world's only nuclear attack and intimately understand Japan's needs to uphold pacifism and reject militarism.
"I have met with many Hibakusha who are still suffering from illnesses, and also many second generation Hibakusha who live with constant fear over the possible effects of their parents' A-bomb exposure on their own health," said Midori Yamada, a second generation Hibakusha.
"The damage and after-effects caused by the atomic bombs are not limited to what happened around Aug. 6 (1945) in Hiroshima and Aug. 9 (1945) in Nagasaki. They continue to threaten the survivors' physical and living conditions deeply in different forms," Yamada said in a recent article on the matter.
"Nuclear weapons not only harm people's bodies but also deeply harm their minds even 70 years since their use. These weapons must be abolished urgently," she stated unequivocally.
It may seem a long step from amending Japan's pacifist constitution to accommodate a more proactive military, to Japan becoming a nuclear-capable nation, but, conceivably, such a revision could see this happen and Japan once again becomes the perpetrator of rising tensions in the region and possibly beyond.
"We're being told that the constitution needs to be changed to keep up with the times. But I think changing it will be a reversal of time and Japan will no longer be a bastion of peace and pacifism in the world," said Nagai.
The government should be proud of 70 years of pacifism and commit to peaceful solutions to issues it is currently facing, she added.
"The constitution says that the 'Japanese people will forever renounce war,' and if there is a referendum on the matter I sincerely hope society here realizes how vital, valuable and virtuous this statement is," the soon-to-be barrister concluded.
