【2012】日本丨政黨政治


題目拆解

參考答案(中文版)

(a) 據吉野作造所言,一個強而有力的內閣應做些什麼?試列舉兩項建議,並以資料A的相關線索支持你的答案。(4分)

考生表現

表現良好。大部分學生能夠參照吉野作造的文章,列舉兩項建議,說明一個強而有力的內閣所應做的事。部分考生未能有效運用資料A的線索,因而失分。

評分準則

L1 僅作一項建議,能夠有效利用資料線索;或兩項建議,未能有效以資料作支持。 [最多2分] L2 作兩項建議,能夠有效利用資料線索。 [最多4分] 例︰ - 掌控立法(「內閣應能控制眾議院的大多數」) - 不受其他政治力量的影響(「參議院及樞密院、以至軍方及元老不會作出惡意反對」) - 施加影響(「決心與反對其信念的敵人作戰並驅除他們」)

參考答案

根據吉野作造所言,不論「單一政黨或由不同政黨聯合組成」的內閣應「控制眾議院的大多數」,好讓議政時避免受到「參議院及樞密院、以至軍方及元老」等機關作出「惡意反對」,方算是一個強而有力的內閣。 其次,從資料A指出一個強而有力的內閣應「勇敢面對」參議院、樞密院、軍方和元老於議政時各種的「無理反對」,不畏反對,並「決心與反對其信念的敵人作出戰並驅除他們」,積極為國民謀福祉。

(b) 根據資料B,櫻會對日本政黨政治家持有什麼態度?試參考資料B的用語,解釋你的答案。(4分)

考生表現

表現平平。很多考生能夠指出櫻會對日本政黨政治家持有敵對的態度;然而,考生往往忽略題目的關鍵詞「用語」,因而未能使用資料B的相關線索解釋其答案。

評分準則

L1 答案含混,及/ 或未能善用資料的用語解釋答案。 [最多2分] L2 答案清楚,能善用資料的用語解釋其答案。 [最多4分]

態度︰ 例︰

- 憎恨 用語︰ 例︰

- 「自私」、「腐化」、「惡毒」等負面詞。

參考答案

櫻會對日本政黨政治家持不滿,討厭和憎恨的負面態度。 資料B形容日本政黨政治家大多是「自私」的,而「自私」一字解個只顧個人利益,貪圖私利,漠視大眾的考慮,故櫻會對日本政黨政治家持不滿的負面態度。 其次,資料B指日本政黨政治家的所作所為乃「蒙蔽」天皇和國民,而「蒙蔽」一字可被解作欺騙,暗示政黨政治家為求達到目的,不惜蒙騙天皇和國民,讓他們蒙在鼓裡,故櫻會對日本政黨天治家持討厭的負面態度。 再者,資料B形容政黨政治家為「毫無道德」,諷刺政黨政治家行為鄙劣,所言所行未能符合道德規範,故櫻會對日本政黨政治家持憎恨的負面態度。 然後,資料B指出政黨政治家多已「腐化」,而「腐化」乃貶義字眼,意指政黨政治家思想迂腐,言行守舊不合時宜,未能為日本帶來富強,故櫻會對政黨天治家持不滿的負面態度。 最後,資料形容政黨政治家對付軍方的行為乃「惡毒」,而「惡毒」一詞解作陰險狠毒,指政黨政治家手段卑鄙,為人奸狡,故櫻會對政黨政治家持討厭的負面態度。

(c) 哪一方– 政黨政治家還是軍方– 應對1930年代日本政黨政治的失敗負上較大責任?試參考資料A及B,並就你所知,解釋你的答案。(7分)


考生表現

表現尚可。雖然大部分考生能夠按題目要求使用資料及自己所知作答,但往往未能掌握關鍵詞「較大責任」,該詞要求學生作結論前要先就政黨政治家和軍方作一比較。考生往往僅集中於政黨政治家或軍方,很少能夠同時兼論兩者,遑論提出合理的論點和說明自己的看法。

評分準則

L1 答案含混,未能有效論及資料及相關史實。 [最多2分] L2 答案欠均衡,僅運用資料或相關史實,及/ 或僅討論政黨政治家或軍方,或比較政黨政治家及軍方後未能清楚提出個人看法。 [最多4分]

L3 答案合理及均衡,能運用資料及相關史實。 [最多7分] 政黨政治家︰ 例︰ - 政治勢弱,政治家們組成聯合政府。(資料A) - 政治家們有很多問題︰他們忘記了基本的原則、缺乏勇氣、忽略精神價值、自私地追求政治權力和物質財富。(資料B) - 內閣多短命。(個人所知) - 政黨政治家們未能教育大眾民主的重要性。(個人所知) 軍方︰ 例︰ - 軍方往往對政黨政府構成一個強大勢力。(資料A) - 與軍方有關係的極端民族主義組織對政黨政府作出批評,認為他們「腐化」。(資料B) - 黑龍會等極端民族主義組織與陸軍策劃政變。(個人所知) - 北一輝、田中義一等活躍的極端民族主義者鼓吹軍國主義思想。(個人所知)

參考答案

政黨政治家應負上較大責任。 資料A指出新成立的內閣乃「聯合內閣」,意指由兩個或以上的政黨聯合組成政府,聯合內關的成立反映政治領導失去政策主動性,政治流動性下降,終導致1930年代政黨政治的失敗,故政黨政治家應負上較大責任。 資料A指出一個「強而有力」的內閣應「能控制眾議的大多數」,好讓議政或推行政策時避免受到「參議院及樞密院、以至軍方及元老」的「惡意反對」。而同時政黨政治家應「勇敢面對」各種「無理反對」,並「決心與反對其信念的敵人作出戰並驅除他們」。 然而,資料B指出政黨政治家「缺乏勇氣推行國家政策」,政黨政治家軟弱無力,意志動搖,執政期間未能為日本圖強,終失支持民心轉向軍國主義者,導致政黨政治1930年代失敗,故須負上較大責任。 同時,資料B指出政黨政治家「只顧自私地追求政治權力和物質財富」,執政時只考慮個人私利,漠視整體大眾的利益,更一度「蒙蔽天皇,也蒙蔽人民」,為求達到目的,不擇手段,欺騙全國人民,民心盡失,終導致1930年代政黨政治失敗,故須負上較大責任。 就我所知,內閣在1918年至1931年間換閣高達11次,內閣更迭頻繁導致民主思想未能植根於日本社會,國民輕易支持態度強硬的軍國主義,終導致政黨政治於1930年失敗,故須負上較大程度。 經濟方面,政黨政治家未能解決多場經濟危機– 關東大地震(1923)、銀行危機(1927)和經濟大衰退(1929)帶來的損失,生活水深火熱的國民因而不滿政黨天治家的統治,終使政黨政治於1930年代失敗,故須負上較大責任。 外交方面,政黨政治家外交表現軟弱,如面對美國《排外法案》(1924)的歧視仍無動於衷,讓國民自尊受損感到不滿,因而討厭政黨政治家的執政,導致1930年代政黨政治的失敗,故須負上較大責任。 然而,軍方亦須為1930年代政黨政治的失敗負上責任。 資料B指出「作為陸軍骨幹」的櫻會應「振奮起來」,團結一致,並「把這些毫無道德的政治家的五臟六腑清洗乾淨」,反對政黨天治家的統治,策劃運動反抗,導致政黨政治終於1930年代失敗,故仍須負上責任。 然而,就我所知從因果關係討論,軍方反抗運動的出現乃是因為政黨政治家的腐敗行為,如政黨政治家於外交上的失利,於1930年倫敦會議爭取合理的裁軍要求,才激起軍方的不滿反抗,終導1930年代政黨政治的失敗,故政黨政治家的責任較大。 總括而言,雖然軍人策劃五一五事變暗殺犬養毅(1932)直接終結日本政黨政治,但歸根究柢,正因為政黨政家貪污腐敗,對內未能處理經濟問題,對外損害日本尊嚴,才導致軍方採取行動。因此,政黨政治家須要付上較大責任。


 參考答案(英文版)

(a) What, according to Yoshino Sakuzo, should a strong cabinet do? List two of his suggestions, and support your answer with relevant clues from Source A. (4 marks)


Candidates’ performance

Performance was good. Most candidates were able to make two suggestions about what a strong country should do according to Yoshino Sakuzo. Some candidates were weak in using clues from Source A, hence losing marks.

Marking scheme

L1 One suggestion only with effective clue from the Source; or two suggestions with weak support from the Source. [max. 2] L2 Two suggestions with effective clues from the Source. [max. 4]


e.g.

- Control the legislative (‘the cabinet should govern by controlling a majority in the House of Representative’) - Be independent from influence by other political forces (‘without hostile opposition from the House of Peers and Privy Council, or form the military-clique and Genro’) - Exert influence (‘on a determination to fight and repel any enemies of its beliefs’)

Suggested answer

According to Source A, Yoshino Sakuzo suggested that a strong cabinet should control “a majority in the House of Representatives” regardless of “whether it is formed by a single party or a coalition”. Thus, “hostile opposition” from “the House of Peers and Privy Council, or from the military and genro” could be avoided. According to Source A, he also suggested that a strong cabinet should “bravely confront unreasonable opposition” from the House of Peers and Privy Council, or from the military and genro. Moreover, a strong cabinet should “be determined to fight and repel any enemies of its beliefs” and actively seek betterment of people’s livelihood. 

(b) According to Source B, what was the attitude of the Cherry Blossom Society towards the party politicians of Japan? Explain your answer with reference to the language used in Source B. (4 marks)

Candidates’ performance

Performance was mediocre. Many candidates could point out that the Cherry Blossom Society had a hostile attitude towards the party politicians of Japan; however, they tended to ignore the key word ‘language’ in the question, hence failed to use the relevant clues from Source B to explain their answers.

Marking scheme

L1 Vague answer and/or fails to make good use of the language used in the Source to explain the answer. [max. 2] L2 Clear answer with good use of the language used in the Source to explain the answer. [max. 4]


Attitude: e.g.

- Hateful Language: e.g.

- Negative descriptions such as ‘selfish’, ‘degenerate’ and ‘poisonous’.

Suggested answer

Cherry Blossom Society held dissatisfied, disgusted and resentful negative attitude towards the party politicians of Japan. According to Source B, the Japanese party politicians were “selfish”. The word “selfish” means that one is only concerned about his/her own interests and ignores the public’s considerations. Therefore, Cherry Blossom Society held dissatisfied attitude towards the party politicians of Japan. Moreover, in Source B, the party politicians of Japan “deceived” both the Tenno and the people, implying that they had tricked the Emperor and the nationals in order to achieve their goals. Therefore, Cherry Blossom Society held disgusted attitude towards the party politicians of Japan. Furthermore, in Source B, the party politicians of Japan were described as “completely immoral politicians”, satirizing that their behaviors failed to comply with the ethical standard. Therefore, Cherry Blossom Society held resentful attitude towards the party politicians of Japan. In addition, Source B stated that most of party politicians were “degenerated”. “Degenerated” is a negative wording which implies that the party politicians were corrupt and conservative and they would not be able to bring prosperity to Japan. Therefore, Cherry Blossom Society held dissatisfied attitude towards the party politicians of Japan. Lastly, Source B described the means of the party politicians to suppress the military as “poisonous”, which implies that the party politicians were mean and deceitful. Therefore, Cherry Blossom Society held disgusted attitude towards the party politicians of Japan.

(c) Who – party politicians or the military – were more responsible for the failure of party politics in Japan in the 1930s? Explain your answer with reference to Sources A and B, and using your own knowledge. (7 marks)

Candidates’ performance

Performance was fair. Although most candidates could follow the question’s instruction to use both Sources and their own knowledge to tackle the question, many of them did not grasp the gist of the key phrase ‘more responsible for’, which required candidates to compare party politicians and the military before making a conclusion. They tended to focus on either the party politicians or the military; few of them could discuss both, not to mention putting forward sound arguments with well-substantiated personal viewpoints.

Marking scheme

L1 Vague argument, ineffective in using both Sources and own knowledge. [max. 2] L2 Unbalanced discussion with effective use of Sources or own knowledge only, and/ or merely discusses party politicians or militarists, or fails to present a clear viewpoint after comparing party politicians and militarists. [max. 4] L3 Sound and balanced discussion with effective use of both Sources and own knowledge. [max. 7]


Party politicians: e.g.

- Parties were weak and they had to form a coalition government. (Source A) - Politicians had a range of problems: they forgot basic principles, lacked courage, neglected spiritual values and selfishly pursued political power and material wealth. (Source B) - Cabinets were short-lived. (own knowledge) - Party politicians failed to educate the public about the importance of democracy. (own knowledge) Military: e.g.

- The military was always a strong political presence against the party government. (Source A) - Military-related ultra-nationalist organizations criticized the party governments and regarded them as ‘degenerate’. (Source B) - Extreme nationalist organizations such as the Amur Society worked with the army to stage coups. (own knowledge) - There were active extreme nationalist such as Kita Ikki and Tanaka Gilchi, who promoted militaristic ideas. (own knowledge)

Suggested answer

Party politicians were more responsible for the failure of party politics in Japan in the 1930s. According to Source A, the newly formed cabinet was a “coalition”, which means that the cabinet was formed by two or more parties. The establishment of a coalition reflects that the political leader would lose his initiative to implement policies. Political mobility was decreased, leading to the failure of party politics in the 1930s. Thus, party politicians were more responsible for the failure. According to Source A, a strong cabinet should control “a majority in the House of Representatives”. Thus, “hostile opposition” from “the House of Peers and Privy Council, or from the military and genro” could be avoided. Meanwhile, the party politicians should ““bravely confront unreasonable opposition” and “be determined to fight and repel any enemies of its beliefs”. However, Source B pointed out that the party politicians “lack the courage to carry out state policies”, reflecting that the party politicians were weak and incapable as well as lacking strong wills. They failed to bring prosperity to Japan and eventually people turned to support the militarists, leading to the failure of party politics in the 1930s. Thus, party politicians were more responsible for the failure. Furthermore, Source B indicated that the party politicians were “wholly preoccupied with their selfish pursuit of political power and material wealth”, showing that they only concerned their own interests instead of public interests. They even “deceive both the Tenno and the people” that they had tricked the Emperor and the nationals in order to achieve their goals. Eventually, this led to the failure of party politics in the 1930s and thus party politicians were more responsible for the failure. In my knowledge, the frequency of cabinet change had reached 11 times during 1918-1931. Democratic ideas failed to root in people’s mind due to the frequent cabinet change. Japanese people easily turned to support militarists who were firm, leading to the failure of party politics in the 1930s and thus party politicians were more responsible for the failure. In economic aspect, the party politicians failed to resolve several economic crises, including the Great Kanto Earthquake (1923), the Bank Crisis (1927) and the Great Depression (1929), which brought heavy economic losses to Japan. Japanese people who were having poor life were dissatisfied with the rule of party politicians, leading to the failure of party politics in the 1930s and thus party politicians were more responsible for the failure. In diplomatic aspect, the party politicians were weak and soft in their diplomatic performance. For example, they had done nothing to deal with the US Exclusion Act (1924). Japanese people were thus discontent towards the ruling of the party politicians since their self-esteem was undermined. It led to the failure of party politics in the 1930s and so party politicians were more responsible for the failure. However, the military was also responsible for the failure of party politics in the 1930s. According to Source B, “as the mainstay of the army”, Cherry Blossom Society must “arouse themselves and wash out the bowels of these completely immoral politicians.” It reflects that Cherry Blossom Society opposed against the ruling of the party politicians and so they initiated uprisings to overthrow their rules. Eventually, the party politics failed in the 1930s and thus the military was responsible for the failure. However, according to my knowledge and in terms of causal relationship, the military planned uprisings because of the corrupt behavior of the party politicians. For example, the party politicians failed to fight for reasonable disarmament requirement in the London Naval Conference in 1930. The diplomatic defeat had angered the military and it eventually led to the failure of party politics in the 1930s. Therefore, party politicians were more responsible for the failure. To conclude, although the military planned the 515 Incident to assassinate Inukai Tsuyoshi that directly ended party politics in Japan, its failure was mainly due to the corrupt behavior of the party politicians. As the party politicians could not handle the economic crises internally and fail to defend Japan’s dignity externally, the military finally initiated uprisings to overthrow their rules. Thus, party politicians were more responsible for the failure.