Anti-war protests rock Japan as PM pushes for stronger defence

"I'm angry that these changes could be made without properly listening to us, the public," she said.

Nearby was an older gentleman standing tall with a bright red banner.

"The Japanese constitution, Article 9 in particular, must be protected at all costs," he said. "It kept Japan from being drawn into past conflicts like the US-Iran war. Without it, we surely would have entered the war by now."

Japan's 1947 constitution was enshrined just two years after the end of World War Two, when the United States defeated the country by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing some 200,000 people by the end of 1945.

Article 9's "pacifist clause" renounced war as a sovereign right of Japan, and stipulated that the country would not maintain military forces for the purpose of waging war - a principle that has since been reinterpreted to allow the self-defence forces to exist.

Supporters saw pacifism as a moral improvement on Japan's wartime militarism.

But even at the time, Article 9 wasn't universally accepted. It was controversial due to perceived foreign imposition, with critics arguing it was heavily shaped by the US. There were also security concerns about Japan being vulnerable amid a rise in Cold War tensions.

For many though, especially those with living memory of conflict and the atomic bombings, any shift away from pacifism ignites fear. Recently, survivors of the Hiroshima atomic bomb pressed for the abolition of nuclear arms at the United Nations, calling to build a human society free from nuclear weapons and war.

"Nuclear weapons were used because we went to war," said Jiro Hamasumi at the 2026 review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He is a hibakusha, a Japanese word to describe bomb-affected people.

"No more war, no more hibakusha," he added.

Some fear Japan could be drawn into conflict again, a sentiment that is playing out on the streets. Demonstrations have been spreading beyond Tokyo with rallies organised in other major cities like Osaka, Kyoto, and Fukuoka. Attendance is reportedly growing week by week, with posts on social media platforms like X playing a big role.

Younger Japanese, who feel they have more at stake in what comes next for Japan, are sharing details of the demonstrations and bringing along their friends.

But while the protests have swelled to some of Japan's largest in decades, they highlight just one side of the story.

Across Japan, opinion is divided. Recent polls point in different directions. Some suggest growing support for a stronger military to keep up with current world environments. Others show clear resistance.

Those in favour of revisions to the constitution argue that Japan's security environment has fundamentally changed.

They say Article 9, written in the aftermath of defeat, is too restrictive, and that Japan must be able to deter aggression, support allies, and respond proactively to crises in the region.

For them, giving the military more legitimacy is not about ignoring pacifism, but about making sure the country can survive an increasingly unstable world.

Meanwhile, those against any revisions say incremental changes risk hollowing out the pacifist clause. They warn that strengthening military powers and loosening long-standing restrictions could draw Japan into conflicts overseas.

For many, Article 9 is not just a legal constraint, but a moral commitment shaped by the devastation of past wars.

During the protests, in a streetside convenience store, a cashier's comments highlighted the division among the Japanese people.

"They're always here," he said of the protesters, with some impatience. Then he added: "Time for a new Japan."

That is the choice the country now faces: whether to hold on to a pacifist identity shaped by the past, or adapt to a more volatile future.

In a country where change has often come carefully and slowly, the question now is not just what Japan decides, but how quickly it's willing to decide it.