Shinzo Abe, now at his half-year mark as prime minister of Japan, rode to power last September with a pledge to continue the policies of his predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi. But it is one thing to pledge and quite another matter to perform. In the run-up to this summer’s Diet elections, it is clear Mr. Abe’s approval ratings are plummeting and his Liberal Democratic Party may be in trouble.

That this should be the case is somewhat surprising since the party guided the nation from the economic malaise of the 1990s to a period of relative strength. But it is also clear that the affable Mr. Abe is not the charismatic Koizumi. Mr. Koizumi won public approval by taking on the anti-reform barons in his own party opposed to the privatization of the postal system.

By contrast, Mr. Abe has announced his intention to reinstate the “postal rebels” in return for a pledge of future policy obedience. The public regards this decision as betrayal and his poll numbers have declined accordingly.

It is instructive that the obedience Mr. Abe has demanded from the “postal rebels” has not been evident in his Cabinet. The prime minister was embarrassed when his minister of defense said the Bush policy in Iraq was “a mistake.” And to make matters worse, the minister of health described Japanese women as “baby making machines.” Finally Mr. Abe had to tell his cabinet members to keep opinions to themselves.

Although Mr. Abe has been described in the American press as “assertive,” his half-year actions are surprisingly indecisive. When the powerful construction lobby opposed Mr. Abe’s proposal to divert road and gas taxes into the general fund in order to offset the growing needs of the elderly, he caved in.

The prime minister is fond of using the expression “beautiful Japan,” but the content, or even context, for this phrase hasn’t been spelled out, leaving the public confused and, to some degree, bemused.

In the one area where the Abe government has seemed unequivocal, international criticism has been loud and clear. International bankers were quite concerned about the influence of politics over pure economics when it came to the value of the yen. When the Bank of Japan decided the nation’s slide of the yen vis-à-vis the dollar demanded an interest-rate hike, Mr. Abe demurred, arguing that a rise in interest rates could have a chilling effect on the economy with elections scheduled for July.

Despite the dismay of international bankers, the bank succumbed to the pressure, leaving the obvious impression it is subject to the whims of politicians and is easily manipulated. This can only be described as a lose-lose formulation, albeit the Bank of Japan did change its mind a month later after the damage was done.

Abroad, Mr. Abe’s trade record is also disappointing. The prime minister insists he is eager to sign free trade agreements with Japan’s Asian neighbors partly to counter China’s growing economic influence. Yet in November he let his agricultural minister veto an effort to abolish farm import barriers, once again signaling to rice farmers that their unique public privilege will not be jeopardized.

Clearly Mr. Abe has time to burnish his image. He is a plain-spoken man very much at home with the Japanese people. In fact, Mr. Abe often goes to a local restaurant without a large security detail and welcomes conversation with nearby diners.

Mr. Abe has several talented advisers who have economic expertise and reformist impulses that could steer him in a positive direction. Yet even if this doesn’t happen, the opposition Democratic Party of Japan is weak and seemingly incapable of exploiting the prime minister’s deficits.

That, of course, could change. But it is apparent six months into his tenure that the prime minister has adopted a surprisingly cautious stance. The fear of losing the next election has led Mr. Abe toward less rather than more reform and to more indecisiveness than anyone could have expected based on his campaign rhetoric.

What this portends for Mr. Abe’s political future is unpredictable. Moreover, Japan’s economic revival is not likely to be substantially undercut by Mr. Abe’s unwillingness to reform.

Nevertheless, the stance of the government could represent a lost opportunity for dramatic growth, and it could add to the cynicism about Japanese political leadership so widespread with the public.

Mr. London, president of the Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University, is the author of “Decade of Denial.”