In the first of the series we discussed the premise that the end of history is being demonstrated by the wide spread acceptance of Liberal Democracy as the government of choice around the world. We discussed the concept that what is meant by the “end of history” is not the end of events or even great and significant moments in world politics. It is merely a statement that the events of history up until now have led to this point that we have finally reached and are accepting an ideal and universal form of world government. Before we can go any further we must address the history of the alternatives to Liberal Democracy and why it has not been more widely accepted that this is the inevitable form of the ideal Social Contract.
Fukuyama calls this non-acceptance of the goodness and inevitable triumph of Liberal Democracy “Our Pessimism.[2] In the west we have been pessimistic about achieving a final form of universally acceptable government because of the witness of the past 100 years. The horrors of World War I, the bloody scourges of Stalinism, the death camps of Hitler, “total war” encompassing the wholesale destruction of civilian populations and resources-all these things disproved what was believed earlier that the progress and civilization of man would remove from our history the barbarities of our ancestors. Indeed, it was these very progresses that enabled evil to find more ultimate ways to express itself.
Liberal Democracy was confronted by two challengers to the “preferred” method of government-Communism and Fascism. Fascism, under the Nazis, was defeated by force of arms. Soviet Communism continued and became the main challenger to the Liberal ideal. In our own times, it became widely accepted that the Soviet regime was not only here to stay, but that it was even an acceptable alternative. It appeared to have legitimacy for the Soviet people. They were apparently willing to trade liberal democratic practices for the security promised by the Soviet state. But it was not legitimate as was quickly proved when the Soviet Union disintegrated in the late 1980s-early 90s.
The collapse came as a total surprise to the west. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as late as the 1970s expressed the views of most western political scientists when he said,
. . . today, for the first time in our history, we face the stark reality that the communist challenge is unending . . . We must learn to conduct foreign policy as other nations have had to conduct it for so many centuries-without escape and without respite. . . . This condition will not go away.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who later served on the National Security Council and was the first female U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote a famous article in 1979 comparing right-wing Authoritarian governments to left-wing (communist) Totalitarian governments. She provided that authoritarian governments were susceptible to democracy and liberalization but there was no provision given for change on the left. Totalitarian regimes (in contrast to authoritarian) controlled their populaces so ruthlessly by expropriating every form of social intercourse including previously internalized values and traditions, that they were therefore rendered virtually immune reform.
The history of this century provide no grounds for expecting that radical totalitarian regimes will transform themselves.
All of our best and brightest were proved incredibly wrong when it finally happened.
Liberalism and Democracy are not necessary partners. A country can be liberal without being democratic, and it can be democratic without being liberal, but because of our pessimism it was felt for a long time that we would not see both coming together in countries currently under the sway of the left or the right. Our world would be evil upon evil without end, amen. The horrors of the twentieth century destroyed our belief in the inexorable goodness of men and our rational western philosophies left us incapable of defending any other view.
But, as stated, we were wrong. And we were wrong for a variety of reasons but the most important one is that other forms of government besides Liberal Democracy are confronted by inherent contradictions that sooner or later erode the legitimacy which is necessary to constitute a civil society of whatever stripe.
Please note that this is not to say that there are no contradictions in the theory and/or practice of liberal democracy or economy. There are more than a few. What this IS to say is that in a Liberal Democracy there are institutional remedies through both the liberal and the democratic processes with which these contradictions are addressed. The ability to correct contradictions therefore leaves intact the legitimacy of the government which it needs to exist and operate.
Liberal Democratic states are visibly weak, but are inherently strong in this respect. Next we will examine the forms of government that are visibly strong, but suffer invisible inherent weakness.
[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992). Second paperback edition.
Gryphon
Dr. Spots
Pessimism of the West
Posted by Dr. Spots on January 31, 2009
Pessimism of the West
This is the second in the series of essays, reviews and commentaries on The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama.[1]
In the first of the series we discussed the premise that the end of history is being demonstrated by the wide spread acceptance of Liberal Democracy as the government of choice around the world. We discussed the concept that what is meant by the “end of history” is not the end of events or even great and significant moments in world politics. It is merely a statement that the events of history up until now have led to this point that we have finally reached and are accepting an ideal and universal form of world government. Before we can go any further we must address the history of the alternatives to Liberal Democracy and why it has not been more widely accepted that this is the inevitable form of the ideal Social Contract.
Fukuyama calls this non-acceptance of the goodness and inevitable triumph of Liberal Democracy “Our Pessimism.[2] In the west we have been pessimistic about achieving a final form of universally acceptable government because of the witness of the past 100 years. The horrors of World War I, the bloody scourges of Stalinism, the death camps of Hitler, “total war” encompassing the wholesale destruction of civilian populations and resources-all these things disproved what was believed earlier that the progress and civilization of man would remove from our history the barbarities of our ancestors. Indeed, it was these very progresses that enabled evil to find more ultimate ways to express itself.
Liberal Democracy was confronted by two challengers to the “preferred” method of government-Communism and Fascism. Fascism, under the Nazis, was defeated by force of arms. Soviet Communism continued and became the main challenger to the Liberal ideal. In our own times, it became widely accepted that the Soviet regime was not only here to stay, but that it was even an acceptable alternative. It appeared to have legitimacy for the Soviet people. They were apparently willing to trade liberal democratic practices for the security promised by the Soviet state. But it was not legitimate as was quickly proved when the Soviet Union disintegrated in the late 1980s-early 90s.
The collapse came as a total surprise to the west. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as late as the 1970s expressed the views of most western political scientists when he said,
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who later served on the National Security Council and was the first female U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, wrote a famous article in 1979 comparing right-wing Authoritarian governments to left-wing (communist) Totalitarian governments. She provided that authoritarian governments were susceptible to democracy and liberalization but there was no provision given for change on the left. Totalitarian regimes (in contrast to authoritarian) controlled their populaces so ruthlessly by expropriating every form of social intercourse including previously internalized values and traditions, that they were therefore rendered virtually immune reform.
All of our best and brightest were proved incredibly wrong when it finally happened.
Liberalism and Democracy are not necessary partners. A country can be liberal without being democratic, and it can be democratic without being liberal, but because of our pessimism it was felt for a long time that we would not see both coming together in countries currently under the sway of the left or the right. Our world would be evil upon evil without end, amen. The horrors of the twentieth century destroyed our belief in the inexorable goodness of men and our rational western philosophies left us incapable of defending any other view.
But, as stated, we were wrong. And we were wrong for a variety of reasons but the most important one is that other forms of government besides Liberal Democracy are confronted by inherent contradictions that sooner or later erode the legitimacy which is necessary to constitute a civil society of whatever stripe.
Please note that this is not to say that there are no contradictions in the theory and/or practice of liberal democracy or economy. There are more than a few. What this IS to say is that in a Liberal Democracy there are institutional remedies through both the liberal and the democratic processes with which these contradictions are addressed. The ability to correct contradictions therefore leaves intact the legitimacy of the government which it needs to exist and operate.
Liberal Democratic states are visibly weak, but are inherently strong in this respect. Next we will examine the forms of government that are visibly strong, but suffer invisible inherent weakness.
[1] Frances Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992). Second paperback edition.
[2] Ibid. 3
Posted in Debate, History, International, Law, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, commentary, economy, government | Tagged: authoritarian, communiam, concentration camps, death camps, democracy, fascism, Germany, henry kissinger, hitler, jeanne kirkpatrick, Liberal, liberal democracy, nazi, social contract, soviet union, stalin, stalinism, totalitarian, United Nations | 1 Comment »