Francis Fukuyama The End Of History Research Paper

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:

In the twentieth century many Europeans liked the idea of having a totalitarian government. The people in Europe found this to be somewhat comforting. They knew that things would be okay if everything was controlled. Part of this was the idea “all for one and one for all”. For this to work out, there were things that had to be contributed to the governments. There were economic, social, and political conditions that helped to transition from the current government that they were using to the totalitarian government.

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.

In his article, ‘The Worldwide Liberal Revolution’ he emphasizes on liberalization, democracy, and communism, authoritarian and totalitarian governments. He adds that there has been a much quieter revolution occurring over the past twenty or thirty odd years. This may be seen in the exceptional economic growth in East Asia since World War II.

The consequences of totalitarianism like an abundant lack of rights and freedoms, control through the use of fear and violence, and gross violations of human rights greatly outweigh the quick decision making and efficiency in totalitarian states. Once again, I do not believe that we should embrace the ideological perspective reflected in the source as totalitarianism is ineffective if it places the state above the individual. Overall the source argues against this opinion as it advocates that totalitarianism is effective when it comes to achieving the state’s goals. The source is a rejection of liberalism as there is a strong lack of individualism, freedom, and the opportunity for all to succeed with totalitarianism in

We by Yevgeni Zamyatin brings up one of the more typical themes of a dystopian novel; a perfect government that essentially will not be defeated. While this is typical theme for science fiction literature, could it be done in real life? Stalin, Hitler, Hirihito…even the current Russian President Vladimir Putin could come to mind when you think of an all-powerful leader who led or leads an all-powerful nation and dominated other nations. However, unlike the novels 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, Zamyatin leaves a hint of doubt regarding the future of the almighty government, the One State. With him concluding the

“The history of the twentieth century was dominated by the struggle against totalitarian systems of state power.”

The conflict between the balance of security and freedom within a society has been an enduring debate since civilization’s inception. Historically, many groups have had wildly differing opinions on the value of individual freedoms compared to the security of the collective. The source’s position is a theory on this balance. The author argues the adversity created from upholding civil liberties within a democracy threatens the security of the state, and that a strong leader with absolute rule would better serve the preservation of the state. This view strongly lines up with the ideological views of Thomas Hobbes, reflecting Hobbes idea of a “Leviathan”, a strong totalitarian leader serving as the most viable option for leadership. This idea

In the worlds of The Last Man by Marry Shelly and A Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, the lives of the survivors of the apocalypse are thrown into chaos. In The Last Man, the people of England are driven out of their native home by the plague and forced into the desolate wasteland that is Europe. In A Handmaid’s Tale, Gilead society has torn Offred away from her past life and severed all her connections to it. In these troubled times, characters turn to religion either by force or their own free will. In apocalyptic scenarios in literature, the fragmentation of memories make the victims of the event susceptible to the controlling influence of religion.

Bracher maintains that the essence of totalitarian is the total claim to control and remake all aspects of society combined with an all-embracing ideology, the value on authoritarian leadership, and the pretence of the common identity of state and society, which distinguished the totalitarian “closed” understanding of politics from the “open” democratic understanding. Unlike the Friedrich-Brzezinski definition Bracher argue that totalitarian regimes did not require a single leader and could function with a collective leadership, which made the American historian Walter Laqueur to quarrel that Bracher’s definition seemed to fit reality better than the Friedrich-Brzezinzki

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.

Though Mao Zedong would argue the people wield the power to change history, they do not. Perhaps they should, but that concerns epistemological questions. And while elements of Mao’s perspective—that the people comprise the “motive force in the making of world history”—wafted around in compelling the U.S. to intervene in Iraq in 2003, it is not a sufficient explanation. The people did not form the chief reason for the Iraqi campaign, and certainly did not originate the intervention “alone”, as Mao’s philosophy would suggest. Alternatively, Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle contends, “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.” He rightly locates the locus of watershed moments in history: great men. At the very least, a few powerful men ultimately control the people’s destiny—both near to and far from home. In reality, a small, elite group of individuals set the agenda for world order. As evidenced by the 2003 Iraq War, a tight circle of plutocrats—the president, his advisors, and those with skin in the financial game—can steer the course for two entire nations for a decade.

In Fukuyama 's “The End of History?” published in 1989, he posits that with the end of the Cold War, humanity is reaching a point where Western liberal democracy and economic structure is the highest form of ideological development. Other ideologies (communism, fascism, etc.) are vestigial forms of thinking destined to fail and disappear in an inevitable progression towards a liberal system. In “The Clash of Civilizations?” published in 1993, Huntington writes that the world is divided into civilizations, based on culture (not ideology or economic factors), and that the conflicts of the future (and some in the present) will be based on divisions along those lines. These include, according to Huntington, “Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African...” (Huntington 1993, 25).

Francis Fukuyama argues that for any new ideology or political trend to emerge that rival those of liberal democracy, it requires the precursor of developments at the level of civic society and culture. Accordingly, he sees the only civic society, and culture that seems poised to do so is Asia. Fukuyama bases his judgment on the claim that for the consolidation of democracy, there must exist four levels of change: On the first level is Ideology, followed by Institutions, then Civil Society, and finally, Culture.