TOKYO — The Liberal Democratic Party of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has governed Japan in one way or another for all but four of the past 61 years, a winning record that reflects the political inertia of a society that values stability and tradition.

But even by the standards of Japanese politics, Abe’s landslide victory in national elections Sunday was stunning.

For the first time, voters gave the Liberal Democrats and their allies more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament — a supermajority that could allow Abe to realize his long-held ambition of revising the clause in the constitution that renounces war and make Japan a military power capable of global leadership.

Opinion polls show only lackluster support for Abe’s security agenda or even his program to revitalize the Japanese economy, but the public appeared unwilling to take another chance on the opposition Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party stumbled badly in its last stint in power, notably in its response to the 2011 earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster.

The vote for stability at home, though, is likely to provoke unease across Asia, where memories of Japanese militarism in World War II endure and the prospect of a more assertive Japan will add to worries over China’s territorial ambitions and North Korea’s nuclear program.

In China, Xinhua, the state news agency, warned in a commentary Monday that the election results “could pose a danger to Japan and regional stability.’’

Analysts say Abe’s governing coalition will not be able to push through constitutional revisions immediately, given that some of the partners have differing opinions on what needs to be amended and how.

The Liberal Democrats’ main ally, a small Buddhist party, has said that it opposes changes to the clause that renounces war. On Monday, Abe said that he intended to press for debate on constitutional revision, though he acknowledged that “it’s not so easy.’’

Abe’s party has also recommended amendments to the clause on freedom of speech and the press that could limit these rights in cases deemed dangerous to the public interest. Another would expand emergency powers for the prime minister. Any revision would have to be approved by a majority in a referendum.