Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s decision to dissolve the House of Representatives on Friday and call a snap general election on Feb 8 has understandably triggered a strong backlash from opposition parties and widespread skepticism among political observers.

Shortly after Takaichi made public that decision on Monday, some opposition parties in Japan accused her of “neglecting people’s lives” by disrupting urgently needed parliamentary deliberations, particularly discussions on the budget and measures to cope with stubborn inflation. Their concerns are reasonable. With prices rising and household incomes under pressure, dissolving parliament at the opening of the Diet session creates an intentional “political vacuum” at a time when policy continuity is most needed.

The unusually compressed election schedule has rightly fueled further criticism. The 16-day gap between dissolution and election day is the shortest in Japan’s postwar history, leaving opposition parties little time to organize campaigns, select candidates and present policy alternatives. By springing a surprise election, Takaichi seems to be exploiting the opposition’s limited preparation while converting her approval ratings into parliamentary seats before public scrutiny of her policies intensifies. Dissolving the lower house conveniently postpones scrutiny of a record budget and the government’s handling of sensitive diplomatic and security issues.

Far from displaying confidence, the move exposes a carefully calculated political gamble that prioritizes partisan advantage and ideological schemes over people’s livelihoods and responsible governance. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, still shadowed by political scandals and unable to offer convincing solutions to economic stagnation, is seeking refuge in an early election rather than answering tough questions in Parliament.

At the heart of the controversy is Takaichi’s objective of securing an immediate mandate for a sharper rightward turn in Japan’s overall policy direction. Since taking office in October, she has emphasized “proactive” fiscal spending and a more assertive, if not militant, security posture, including a review of Japan’s key national security documents.

In particular, her erroneous and dangerous remarks on the Taiwan question in the Diet on Nov 7, through which she issued an unprovoked military threat to China over the latter’s internal affairs, have?caused a diplomatic crisis between Japan and China, a major trading partner of Japan. And her refusal to retract the remarks and the great lengths her government has gone to in a bid to whitewash her mistakes over the past months have further escalated the tensions that have had increasingly obvious repercussions for Japan’s economy.

Therefore, an electoral victory would be used to justify accelerated military expansion and pave the way for constitutional revision — long-standing goals of Japan’s conservative right.

Takaichi is also trying to consolidate her position within the LDP. With more than two years left in the current lower house term, there is no procedural necessity for dissolution. Instead, she is betting that her current approval rate can strengthen the ruling coalition’s grip on power and quell internal dissent. By explicitly linking her premiership to the election’s outcome, Takaichi has turned the vote into a de facto plebiscite on her leadership.

A stronger public mandate for her government’s hawkish policies, featuring militarist expansion, denial of Japan’s historical war crimes and interference in other countries’ internal affairs, will necessarily heighten tensions in East Asia and complicate relations with neighboring countries, adding another layer of risk to an already volatile regional environment.

The question facing Japanese voters is not simply whether Takaichi deserves more time in office, but whether the country, which seems to have no brake pedal installed in its decision-making mechanism, can afford governance shaped by the dangerous rise of right-wing forces.

The outcome of this election will shape the nation’s political trajectory, and the manner in which it has been called has already raised troubling questions about priorities, accountability and the true cost of political gambles taken at the expense of the public good and regional interests.