Compare And Contrast Huntington And Fukuyama

Fukuyama argues that a modern liberal democracy needs a state, rule of law and accountability. A state is a centralized authority that holds military power on a selected territory. It is the armed forces that keep a nation safe on a domestic and foreign level. On the other hand, the rule of law came about through written legislation. Thus, written rules, organize power in a system no matter who is in power. This implies that a modern democracy must have legal institutions that are superior to a ruler, the army and bureaucracy. Finally, political accountability comes through accountable bodies like parliament’s and assemblies that represent the people. In the end, Fukuyama claims democracy is truly born when laws reflecting the people’s desires are stronger than individual rulers and elections are held.

Since the dawn of human civilization, individuals have been constantly immersed in conflict with each other. Whether these conflicts stemmed from socio-economic inequalities, political disputes, property rights, religious disagreements, or any other contentious matter, the creation of human governments has necessarily been to handle, organize, and resolve conflicts between people within communities in the least destructive manner possible. Governments act as a formal instrument through which individuals in a society can agree upon shared rules, solve problems, and engage in cooperative behavior, and it helps avoid the severe repercussions resulting from revolutionary social upheaval. The purpose of government – as spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution – is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” While countless forms of government have sprung up over the centuries, only one has been resilient enough and has had the pervasive influence necessary to stand the test of time: democracy. While there are many different types of democracies, this paper will focus on liberal democracy specifically. A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy that operates under the paradigm of classical liberalism. According to the Center for Research on Globalization, liberal democracy is defined as:

An “iron curtain” of Communism spread over Eastern Europe as the post-World War II world tried to re-build Germany and Easter Europe. As the dictator Joseph Stalin sealed off the Eastern Bloc, the rest of Europe began to re-build under a democratic rule. This re-building continued and the USSR continued to keep their “totalitarian” hold on the East. As the Cold War continued the battle that was being fought soon became the battle between the two world super powers. This led to many conflicts and continued up until finally in 1989 the Berlin Wall was taken down reuniting Western and Eastern Germany and bringing down the “iron curtain“ that shaded the East from freedom.

On November 9, 1989 the Berlin wall came crumbling down. For 28 years the wall did nothing but make everyone's life worse. However, when the wall fell everyone’s lives were about to be impacted for the better. Families were reunited, friends saw each other again, and peace was restored. The fall of the wall marked the winding down of the Cold War, and started a new age where communism would cease to exist. Much of the credit was being given to Ronald Reagan, who had visited the wall just a few years earlier. When Reagan gave his “Tear down this wall” speech, no one could’ve predicted, that it would lead to the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, and the eventual end of the cold war. Although as a result all communist governments in Eastern Europe had come to an end, would be replaced by “democratically elected governments”. With all this, there was a glimpse of peace and a time of rejoicing for all of the world. ("Fall of

Huntington’s initial article argued that in the post-Cold War era the fundamental source of conflict would not be ideological or economic, but cultural. He continues by arguing that nation states will continue to be the most powerful actors in global affairs, but the conflicts of global politics that are to occur in the future will happen between

Francis Fukuyama; political scientist, economist, and author, in his article “The End of History?” discusses he rise and fall of major ideologies such as absolutism, fascism and communism, and suggests that human history should be viewed in terms of a battle of ideologies which has reached its end in the universalization of Western liberal democracy. Fukuyama concludes that the idea of Western liberal democracy has triumphed in the world through a variety of different ways and is a thriving piece of world order today. However, there are certain flaws to his argument including a US- centric view on the events of the twentieth century.

Both authors, Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama, don’t have any conflicting views but have different perceptions as to how they see the world after the revolution and the cold war. Samuel believes that the west is dominating the world, changing cultures and customs of other countries. However, Francis analyzes the positive aspects of how the liberal democracy in the west is more powerful than all other democratic nations and he portrays how western dominance is effective and healthy for most of the nations.

In Samuel P. Huntington’s article “The West: Unique, Not Universal,” he addresses his audience with a very controversial question: Is Western Culture universal or unique? Huntington elaborately opens up this question with research and examples to explain and persuade readers that the West will never be a universal culture for all, but rather a unique culture that will be accepted by those who appreciate it. For decades now, historians and scholars have debated with one another to determine who is right and wrong. However, from a handful of articles from different scholars, Samuel Huntington’s statement that the West is unique rather than universal is supported and even further elaborated on by these particular sources. A common understanding between all the sources, that must be noted, is that a civilization’s culture is not comprised of material goods but rather their culmination of their religion(s), values, language(s) and traditions. While although there are scholars out their that negate the West is unique, a large amount of scholars still argue and strengthen Huntington’s argument that the West has unique and exclusive characteristics that make them distinctive and rare.

Stephanie Liang WR98 C1 Prof.Michaud Essay 1-Final states”(103). Had he not used these constructions and instead stopped at “drama”, the readers would not be able to understand the various relationships during Cold War. These succinct constructions allow a straight-forward understanding of the essay and help gain readers’ agreement. In addition of short phrases, the author contrasts the global atmosphere during Cold War period to that at present in separate paragraphs but with highly identical structures. For example, he utilizes the features of “division” and “wall” (102) to serve as a foil to the “integration” and “web” (102) concepts of globalization system by including detailed description of the better-being in the latter system, and in doing so, makes it obvious to readers that two systems possess different nature and that the new one is favored. Another structure technique Friedman uses is parallelism, which illustrates the divergent communication phenomena of two systems: “In the cold war we reached for the hotline, which was a symbol that we were all divided but at least two people were in charge…In the globalization system we reach for the Internet, which is a symbol that we are all connected and nobody is quite in charge” (103). This equal paragraph distribution of two discussed subjects enables readers to

As Mark Mazower notes in his Dark Continent text the tale of democracy in the twentieth century, was not one of, an inevitable victory, but rather one “of narrow squeaks and unexpected twists,”.( Preface, Kindle Location 116). This paper will examine important events of the era that factored into the ideological fight for supremacy. While also highlighting examples that show that Europeans largely have not always been incredibly enthusiastic about democracy.

Reacting to the theory of Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington resumed the expression "Clash of civilizations" in 1993 and speculates that it is mainly cultural and religious identities

To begin with Francis Fukuyama's, provocative thesis, that after the fall of communism in Europe and the withering of the grand ideological contests, history too has ended. In his "end of history" theory, he maintained that the western liberal democracy had become the `final form of human government'. The fact is that though not all theorists have this kind of a faith in liberal democracy, and believe that it's not the only feasible form of democracy, they are in a minority. The theoretical circles and the popular discourse have been dominated by "liberal democracy."

In conclusion, however, I find that it is not a meaningful argument to examine if ‘the end of history’ has indeed taken place, simply because Francis Fukuyama has set the basis of his theory too wide. People will naturally gravitate towards having more options in their lives, be it socially, economically or in this case, politically. This tendency would thus make Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ irrefutable. The more pertinent question to explore would be how the end goal of liberal democracy can be properly managed, with it being based on the twin principles of liberty and equality. At this end point of history as we know it, trade-offs have to be made between the two- equality cannot be achieved without the actions of a state controlling liberty, while liberty cannot be attained fully without social inequality. The end of history has dawned, where there would be no further meaningful challenge to liberal democracy, but a new battle awaits with the conundrum of balance between liberty and equality in liberal

Samuel Huntington, the author of the clash of the civilisations believes that the World will eventually divide in accordance with cultural lines, and not political lines. According to Huntington, “the thriving East Asian and Muslim societies will soon challenge Western dominance, and the United States being the World leader will need to reevaluate its policies on foreign invention and domestic immigration to remain a major player.” During the Cold War, the world was divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds. Huntington views these ties as insignificant now and states that the remaking of the World order will be based upon cultural similarity. The different thriving civilisations according to him today are the Western civilisation comprising of North America and Western Europe, the Muslim civilisation, the Orthodox Civilisation led by Russia, the Chinese civilisation, the Hindu civilisation, the Japanese civilisation, the Latin American civilisation and the African civilisation. Huntington’s proposition of the division of the World according to cultural lines has been backed by the use of various examples by him; examples of events that have taken place in the past.

Fukuyama and McFaul make strong arguments for the importance of democracy promotion, but it is not without its flaws. The world is fragmented by ethnic, linguistic and religious differences, and as such, the notion that there exists 'moral universals' is viewed as dangerous (Dunne 2001, pp. 179). Gray (1995, pp. 146) aptly articulated that "the universalizing mission of liberal values such as democracy, capitalism and secularism undermine the traditions and practices of non-Western cultures." And that may illustrate the rejection of Liberalism thus far. Democracy, when promoted by Western states, is inextricably tied in with other Western ideals such as capitalism and secularism. These ideals often do not mesh well with prevailing cultural practices, resulting in dissent and potential military conflict, results contrary to Liberalism's ultimate goal. This leads to the second rationale: national security.