J

apanese voters have taken a major risk by giving the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DJP) a mandate to run the country, after their landslide victory in Sunday's general election. To what extent and how soon can the DJP meet the expectation of voters that they can end the country's prolonged economic crisis?

While voters are looking for a quick and comprehensive recovery, any solution offered by the new government will likely be painful and costly, as the problem has become so complicated, largely due to widespread corruption.

Asia will be watching the new government very closely. An ailing Japan is a source of anxiety for the region, which continues to see Japan as a key source of aid and investment, even though its capacity in this role has declined significantly. Indonesia will still rely on Japan for investment, as well as for its more recent role as a destination for hospitality workers.

The DJP will not likely bring about drastic changes to Japan's security and foreign policy. It will continue to maintain strong relations with the United States, with minor adjustments. North Korea, South Korea and China will no doubt be the focus of its Asian policies. Indonesia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations must make sure that the new DJP government will not repeat the Liberal Democratic Party's habit of taking us for granted.

Relations between Indonesia and Japan are poised to improve. Indonesia should feel at ease in talking to a fellow democracy. The new government in Tokyo is also expected to be much more obliging to the voices of civil society. The LDP governments, as we recall, preferred to deal with business and other official organizations.

Sunday's vote signified the desire of voters for Japan to live up to its reputation as the world's second most powerful economy, a task successive LDP governments failed at, causing Japan to lose face to the point of experiencing an identity crisis. Japan needs to rethink how it dispenses soft powers across Asia. The old approach of relying solely on investment and foreign aid has become obsolete.

European countries may have given less aid and invested less in Indonesia, but since a large amount of their funds have gone straight to the grassroots for education, training or infrastructures programs, they have had a much wider and longer-lasting impact. Compare this with Japan's investment in Indonesia, which largely comes in the form of mega-projects, often beset with problems.