Iima, a word hunter, talks about the “expression of a bewildering politician”: “I should reflect on what I should reflect on,” “If I have misled you,” and so on.

Why do politicians continue to use these words despite criticism?

Why do politicians continue to use “If I have misled you” and “I should reflect on what I have done” when both of these phrases have been criticized extensively on social networking sites?

They are probably comparing the disadvantages of being criticized with the advantages of being able to obscure responsibility. Politicians who can use such phrases as ‘I should reflect on what I should reflect on’ are smart people, so it is impossible for them not to consider the possibility of being criticized.

Saying frankly, “I made an error in judgment on this point,” gives a refreshing impression, but at the same time, you will be held accountable. They may not want to do that, so they may use ambiguous expressions, even if they may receive some criticism.

People have accumulated successful experiences of being able to get away with using ambiguous expressions, so they are now using these expressions with great appreciation.

In fact, there are many politicians who say, “If you apologize, you lose. In fact, there are many politicians who believe that “if you apologize, you will lose.” In the current Diet session, there are politicians who are moving the goalposts endlessly in order to shift the discussion point, and on the Internet, there are expressions such as “if you apologize, you will die” about those who will never apologize.

While saying that such “ambiguous expressions of apology” may only increase in the future, Mr. Iima concluded his talk with this suggestion: “If a person apologizes clearly, he or she should be given a higher evaluation.

I think we should give more credit to those who apologize clearly,” he said. People who can analyze themselves and say, ‘I did well up to this point, but I made a mistake on this point,’ and then apologize, can be said to be taking responsibility for their words and actions. In this respect, they are trustworthy.

If you evaluate apologies only negatively, you will say, ‘That politician apologized. So I’m going to drag him down. Of course, responsibility should be taken for the wrong part, but on top of that, it is necessary for society to evaluate the apology in a positive way. If there is a social consensus that ‘a clear apology is rather trustworthy,’ more people will make the decision to apologize.

Looking at world history, Germany has gained a certain level of trust in the international community by apologizing for its mistakes during the Nazi era. I believe that if we can create a society that appreciates and respects the fact that ‘that person clearly apologized at that time,’ not only in the international community but also in groups close to us, there will be fewer people who run away with ambiguous words.

Hiroaki Iima, editor of a Japanese-language dictionary, was born in Takamatsu City, Kagawa Prefecture, in 1967. Born in Takamatsu City, Kagawa Prefecture in 1967, he graduated from Waseda University’s Faculty of Letters I and earned his Ph. D. from Waseda University. He is a member of the editorial board of the Sanseido Dictionary of the Japanese Language. Author of “Compiling a Dictionary” (Kobunsha Shinsho), “Catch More Japanese! (illustrated by Maki Kanai, Mainichi Newspaper Publishing) and “Nihongo wa kowakunai” (Japanese is not scary) (PHP).