Pachinko Is Not Gambling, and the Self-Defense Forces Are Not a Military—The Magic of Japan's “Official Fictions”

“Is pachinko gambling?”

Ask an ordinary person, and almost everyone would probably answer, “Of course it is.”

Pachinko is a popular Japanese game played on upright machines. Players launch small steel balls through a field of pins, and balls that enter certain pockets can produce a payout of more balls.

You put in cash, win more balls, and exchange them for prizes. You can then take those prizes to a separate location, where they are bought from you for cash.

This is the so-called “three-shop system.”

Legally, however, operating a pachinko parlor is not treated as automatically constituting the criminal offense of gambling.

I see. Apparently, the logic is that it is not gambling because the parlor does not hand over cash directly.

Once cash turns into a prize along the way, it stops being gambling. Japanese law comes with a remarkably convenient transformation feature.

But this distinction between reality and official appearances is not limited to pachinko.

The Official Position That the Self-Defense Forces Are Not a Military

The Japan Self-Defense Forces provide a much larger example.

Tanks, fighter jets, destroyers, and submarines: in both organization and equipment, they are a military by international standards.

Yet Article 9 of Japan’s Constitution states that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”

The government has therefore adopted the interpretation that the minimum level of force necessary for self-defense does not constitute the “war potential” prohibited by the Constitution.

Overseas, the Self-Defense Forces are sometimes referred to as the Japanese military. At home, however, they remain strictly the “Self-Defense Forces.”

Of course, their constitutionality is not explained by the name alone. The government has built up a body of constitutional interpretation over many years.

Even so, it seems strange from an ordinary person’s point of view.

Even hundreds of fighter jets do not amount to constitutional “war potential.” Apparently, the legal definition matters more than the capabilities of the weapons.

Why Rely on Interpretation Instead of Changing the Law?

The reason is simple.

Changing the law is troublesome.

It requires debate in the Diet, coordination among interested parties, and persuasion of opponents. A constitutional amendment would even require a national referendum.

By adjusting interpretation and implementation within the existing legal framework, however, some of that political burden can be avoided.

Pachinko and the Self-Defense Forces have different legal structures and histories. What they share is that, rather than fundamentally rebuilding institutions to match practical needs, Japan has tried to make reality consistent with the existing framework.

For politicians, this is an extremely useful approach.

Change an institution directly, and an opposition movement will arise. Respond through interpretation and implementation, and the troublesome debate can be postponed.

Rather than solving the problem, the system keeps it from coming to the surface.

Why Are Casinos Unacceptable but Pachinko Is Fine?

The contradiction is particularly easy to see in the debate over casinos.

Japan spent many years debating whether to legalize casinos.

They would increase addiction. They would worsen public safety. Should the state really approve gambling?

Many objections were raised.

Japan, however, already has pachinko parlors across the country.

They can be found both in front of train stations and in the suburbs, and they have formed a huge industry over many years.

Casinos, meanwhile, cannot operate without special legislation and strict regulation. Plans for an integrated resort in Osaka are moving forward, but reaching that point has taken many years.

In other words, existing pachinko businesses can continue operating within the system, while any attempt to build a new casino triggers a major debate.

Of course, the two have different business models and legal frameworks.

But they also have much in common when it comes to the risk of customers losing money and the problem of addiction.

Even so, one is treated as an established entertainment industry, while the other is treated as a gambling facility that requires a special legal framework.

Apparently, in Japan, how long something has existed matters more than whether it is gambling.

Japan Is Better at Making the Pieces Fit Than Solving the Problem

Systems like these do have practical advantages.

They allow society to respond to change without rewriting laws from scratch. Existing institutions can be preserved while major political conflict is avoided.

The price, however, is an accumulation of reasoning that ordinary people find difficult to understand.

Pachinko is not gambling.

The Self-Defense Forces are not the war potential prohibited by the Constitution.

Casinos cannot be approved without special legislation.

Each position has a legal explanation. Viewed side by side, however, they create a very strange picture.

Laws should normally be revised to reflect the realities of society.

In Japan, however, reality is forced into complex arrangements in order to preserve the official appearance of the law.

Once such an arrangement has existed for long enough, nobody says that it is strange anymore.

Japan is strict about breaking rules. Yet it is remarkably tolerant of creating elaborate loopholes so that the rules do not technically have to be broken.