Summary of Primacy of Culture by Francis Fukuyama Essay

Communism is a “Political theory advocating class war and leading to a society which all property is publicly owned and each person works and paid according to their abilities” After world war 2 communism took over Czechoslovakia and people flocked to join the party. Not everyone was convinced that the party was what the country needed for them to gain peace. The party had lots of propaganda and were in control of peoples live therefore convincing people to join the party even if reluctant. In Under a Cruel Star, Kovaly recounts her time after the war and joining the communist party and then being shunned when her husband was convicted of a crime. She talks about how people put blind faith in a party that didn't have much scientific evidence to back up their claims. Kovaly said the most people went to the communist party because when coming back from the concentration camp they wanted to be in control of property again and they stayed because they felt helpless without the party providing services. They went from one type of totalitarian government to another kind of government that controlled everything they did. People of the time didn't realize that communism didn't benefit people who weren't in an elite class.

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.

However, there are many advantages and disadvantages regarding this ideology. The main advantages of this democratic

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.

The word ‘communism’ originated from ‘commun’, a French term meaning ‘belonging to all’. Before the actual foundation of communist parties and countries, there were people who had desired the theory of shared ownership and equal wealth among society for centuries. The earliest notable people to endorse this theoretical societal system included Greek philosopher Plato and religious leader

In his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

Democracy has become the most widespread political form of government during the past decade, after the fall of all its alternatives. During the second part of the 20th century, the 3 main enemies of democracy, namely communism, fascism and Nazism, lost most of their power and influence. However, democracy is still only to be found in less than half of this world's countries. China with a fifth of the total population "had never experienced a democratic government" and Russia still doesn't have a well established democracy. By adopting a democratic perspective, 3 types of governments emerge, non-democratic, new democracies, and old democracies, and all have a different challenge to overcome: either to become democratic, to "consolidate"

The identities that each person possesses is influenced according to their attitudes, values and beliefs embedded in their culture. When people hear the word cult, the images of satan worshipping, animal sacrifices and evil, pagan rituals automatically come to mind. However, in reality, the majority of cults do not involve these things and are in fact simply a religious system with alternate beliefs. The word though refers to an unorthodox sect whose members distort the original doctrines of the religion. Heaven’s Gate is a cult that is centred in California, founded by Marshall Herff Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles in 1993. They are a UFO based ‘destructive doomsday’ cult who believed that evil space aliens called ‘Luciferians’ had kept

Communist had a long history during the 20th century, and communism was very influential. Almost all of Asia and East Europe became Communist. From the start of the theory then many civil wars in Russia affected the whole world. Communist defined the idea of itself in many different ways, it helps many nations came together formed a party fought wars, but it also made many countries became really poor, and the economy in most of the countries got pushed back about 10 years. Communism is an economic and political system that sought to create an egalitarian society; it collapsed because of personal interest and government’s corruption.

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:

“It is a shift in the practice of democracy from hostility to civility, from advocacy to engagement, from confrontation to conversation, from debate to dialogue, and from separation to community.” (p. 4)

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."

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.

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 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