The End of History
The idea that we are at the end of history was proposed back in the late eighties by Francis Fukuyama. His essay, "Are We at the End of History," ran in Fortune magazine back in January of 1990. What he implies here is not the end of time. Rather, his theory is that we are seeing the end of the evolution of thought on principles governing political and social organizations. The winner of this struggle being liberal democracy. Liberal in the classical sense that is based on political and economic liberty.
It is easy to see why he may have felt this way, back in the late eighties, what with the various attempts by so many of the former Eastern Block states and the former soviet republics to replace their governments with free democracies. According to Fukuyama, fascism and communism, the two major challenges to liberalism in the twentieth century failed to overtake it. Now that those threats have passed, responsible capitalists can do a world of good.
While this certainly makes for an interesting discussion, his thesis is flawed. It is important that we take the time to look at why this is.
Fukuyama's thinking is somewhat ethnocentric as it implies that our system is some perfect theory that all people will eventually accept as their cultures and societies evolve into our obviously superior state. First of all, this sort of elitist thinking does not take into account the whole of human history. Fukuyama seems to think the recent events, leading up to the writing of his article, somehow override the 4,000 plus years of recorded history. Secondly, to imply that liberal democracy has successfully vanquished all other social theories is a dangerous assumption. He seems willing to totally disregard the fact that such a large percentage of the world's population (both then and still today) do not live in societies that embrace or are even close to resembling liberal democracies.
I'll be the first person to agree with Fukuyama on the superiority of liberal democracy. Truth, justice, and the American way; as far as I'm concerned, you can't beat it. He is probably correct about the notion that the liberal democracy is the final step in the evolution of thought on principles governing political and social organizations. However, I would say that is a matter to be decided by future generations. What makes his assumption dangerous for our generation today, is his implication that there are no longer any credible threats to our social and political system. He claims the victory of liberal democracy means "a lessened likelihood of large scale conflict between states." We must realize that there is no guarantee that our nation will be here forever. Many other democracies have been attempted and have either been overthrown or they have rotted from the inside out. While we may be living in a post cold war world, we cannot be foolish enough to assume that our system won't be challenged again ideologically or dare I say militarily.
This brings us to the most basic study of politics. The very definition of politics is the competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership. As long as the History of humans is made up of human endeavors, politics will continue to be driven by human nature. This has always been true and will remain so. Fukuyama assumes that merely the superior nature of liberal democracy will be more than enough to persuade any challengers to our society to subjugate himself and share political power with the people rather than make any attempt to conquer and share power with no one. History is full of characters who wanted to be in ultimate power. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, and more recently Adolph Hitler are just a few of the many people that have come and gone in the course of history. Each representing different aspects of human nature but all of them driven to conquer and maintain power for themselves. Fukuyama seems unwilling to recognize that some humans are incapable of controlling their own selfish urges with mere logic. If history is any indication, there will again be serious challenges to our hold on power. It is true that communism and fascism were struck down in the twentieth century. However, we must remember that the twentieth century is now over. The generation that was in power here during the World Wars and the ensuing cold war have been replaced by their children's generation, as have the former leaders in other parts of the world. There is no logical reason to assume that the natural competition for power and world leadership amongst this new generation of leaders will completely cease.
Fukuyama addresses this point in his article. He takes the opposite position stating, "That if one were to take this competitive theory seriously, one would have to believe that natural competitive behavior would reassert itself were Russia and China to disappear from the face of the earth. For example, West Germany and France would arm themselves against each other as they did in the 1930s, and the U.S.-Canadian border would become fortified. Such a prospect is, of course, ludicrous..."
This comment by Fukuyama again shows both his disregard for history and his unwillingness to recognize the fact that such a large percentage of the world's population (both then and still today) do not live in societies that embrace or are even close to resembling liberal democracies. First of all, he disregards the fact that wars have been fought throughout history between former allies and also between nations with similar belief systems. Secondly, he only acknowledges the regimes of two countries, both of which are similar in their position of Marxism-Leninism over liberal democracy. He fails to consider the threats posed by other societies. Despotism is still a very real problem in the nonwestern world. Theocracies still exist, especially in the Muslim world. Many third world nations today are suffering from what I would characterize as rampant warlordism. Political power is captured and maintained with force by rival factions. This is especially prevalent in Africa. The fact that these societies still exist and are operated in such a fashion are a clear indication that the darker side of human nature is still very much alive in the realm of politics. These societies exist and are still being created today even in the face of our powerful system. Our somewhat unique form of government, based on the notions of classical liberal democracy, has been a model for the world for over 225 years and yet rather than copy our model, other theories on governing political and social organizations are still utilized today.
Fukuyama's claims of the superiority of classical liberal democracy are valid. The US Constitution is the best form of government made by man to date. He may even be correct in assuming that it is the final stage in the natural evolution of thought on principles governing political and social organizations. However, we as a nation are very guilty of not only short attention spans but also short memories, we tend to look at everything as if the world we live in, this modern world of the last fifty years, is a reflection of the way things have always been. The struggle for power and land has been the story from day one. It will continue to be so for as long as man is in control. If we accept Fukuyama's notion to be more preoccupied with economics than with politics and strategy as he implies nations at the end of history should be, we will be making a great mistake. As long as so much of the world lives in societies controlled by humans that oppose our theory of liberal democracy, the ideological wars will continue to rage on. To think otherwise leaves our nation in a vulnerable position.
It is easy for me to criticize an article published ten years ago. Though, neither of my complaints with his opinion are issues that could not have been raised ten years ago. However, any careful examination of our world today would indicate that the ideological wars are in fact far from being over. Today in Kaduna, a state in Nigeria, they began implementing Islamic holy law, or Shariah, in the local courts. While this is not a complete state transformation of their judicial system, it only goes to show that some people still perceive other theories superior to liberal democracy. We also in this post September 11th society find ourselves caught in a "large scale conflict between states," as we also did during Desert Storm barely a year after Fortune magazine ran Fukuyama's article. If history is any indication we will surely find ourselves in yet other conflicts beyond the end of this current episode. This is why we must remain vigilant in protecting our beliefs. We cannot forget that no matter how superior we think liberal democracy may be, it is perceived as inferior and in some cases a threat by those who wish to hold power themselves rather than share it with the people.
Back to the Wildebeest Editorial