LONDON -- Prime Minister Junichiro Koziumi's smashing election victory could give him the same kind of political power as that which fell into the hands of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Should he therefore follow the Thatcher recipes and methods for structural economic reform, which had such an electric effect on the British economy and from which the British are still benefiting enormously today 20 years later?

Thatcher used her swelling political majority to best advantage, and showed great courage and conviction in overcoming resistance to change, some of which was quite violent.

But it is as well to remember the weaknesses and ultimate failures in the Thatcher approach as well as the successes, since in the end these caused unnecessary bitterness and devalued her achievements in many people's eyes. These problems could have been avoided.

The biggest weakness was the failure to convince the broad public that her reforms would bring benefits to all, not just a lucky few, and that those who had their lives disrupted by change would be properly cushioned and cared for, and not just flung on the scrapheap by the harsh workings of market forces.

In reality, and in the end, years after Thatcher departed from office, these early reforms have indeed probably benefited the vast majority of British people. But at the time that prospect was not at all clear, nor did the language and policies of the Thatcher reform era give much comfort to a lot of very frightened workers.

The best course would have been to concentrate more heavily on spreading the benefits and wealth of all the privatizations, the new enterprises and the deregulation that went on, to the whole population, and to do so not by bigger welfare handouts -- the socialist way -- but by wider capital ownership, through assets, pensions and property, to all families. The declared aim should have been to turn earners into owners, to abolish the slavery of over-dependence on weekly wages and to give people down to the humblest level the dignity of some personal security and savings.

It could be argued that to some extent this is what the Thatcher reforms tried to do. Millions bought their own houses from the state. And the number of direct holders of stocks and shares in Britain rose from 3 million to 9 million during the Thatcher years, although most of these shareholdings were small and vulnerable -- and mostly in the privatized industries, such as electricity, gas and telephones. Not all these shares did very well and some holders sold in disillusion, although others, such as the lucky holders of shares in the privatized National Freight business, built up a very nice sum.

But generally the spread of the new prosperity was limited. Most people continued to feel that their only chance of a better living standard was through pressing for higher wages and salaries, while resentment built up that the real wealth was going into the pockets of a few financial operators and "fat-cat" directors.

The message from the Thatcher proponents thus became far too ideological and insensitive. Being told that markets were the best solution to everything and that the judgment of the market would determine everyone's fate was not at all appealing. Nor was it convincing.

Too many Thatcherite experts seemed to forget that markets only work in the proper social and light-regulatory context. They forgot that the greatest postwar European miracle, the amazing German economic recovery under the guidance of the financial genius Ludwig Erhard, was labeled the social market economy, not just unvarnished market economics.

And they forgot that markets do not necessarily end up in equilibrium but can either become extremely volatile or be replaced by monopolies and cartels, as Adam Smith, the father of modern liberal economics, forcibly pointed out long ago.

All this played straight into the hands of critics and opponents, who speedily labeled the Thatcher philosophy as greedy and self-interested and urged a return to dependency on the government and the state to solve all problems.

Luckily, by the end of the 1980s the whole world was changing, and although in Britain there has been some back-sliding to the bad old ways, the bulk of the Thatcher legacy remains intact. So perhaps the answer to the question for today's big political winners -- in any country -- is, yes, follow the Thatcher example in terms of courage and conviction, and challenge the narrow and self-serving arguments of those who resist. But remember and care for the immediate losers, and remember to spread the eventual benefits as widely as possible to all levels of society. Above all, it is worth remembering at such moments of political triumph a dictum of Winston Churchill -- "in victory, magnanimity."

If Japan follows these paths it will emerge a happier and more united nation from the testing processes of reform -- and it will have learned something worthwhile from Britain's experience.