THE PRIMACY OF CULTURE
Democracy’s Future –
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.
At the level of ideological change, believes about the merits and demerits of democracy and its encumberent market structure, must first be
…show more content…
Thus, Fukuyama infers that cultural stability is key to ideological stability, and thus where there exist a strong cultural identity such as exist in the “paternalistic Asian authoritarianism” system, there exists a possible rival to liberal democracy.
Competitors To Democracy
The second section of this essay addresses the competitors to liberal democracy. Fukuyama names four serious contenders to liberal democracy. These are: Asian authoritarianism, extreme nationalism or fascism, Islam, and a revived neo-Bolshevism. The author goes on to explain that each of these alternatives has problems as a worldwide ideological movement, and points out that they all have problems integrating into the increasingly technological global economy.
Delving into the individual ideologies, the author explains the case of Fascism using Serbia as an example of an extreme nationalist state, and accredits the problems of these types of societies to their tendency to emphasize ethnic security. This emphasis causes conflict and war and destroys the country’s economy, which is the modern basis of power. He then explains that there is evidence that this conflict is a short-term threat to a democracy, and that it is part of a transition period.
Moving to Islamic fundamentalism, Fukuyama points out that it’s wave has not
Throughout the world there are many diverse political cultures. A political culture is the attitudes, beliefs or practices among a group of likeminded individuals. (Giardino pg. 27) There are different categories that embrace a political culture like an Individualistic, traditionalistic and moralistic. An individualistic culture is one that prefers less government involvement. The traditionalists’ culture maintains government as the social and economic hierarchy and does not like change. The moralistic culture favors public good and it revolves around social issues. In shaping a political culture demographics such as population size, growth, distribution and diversity are essential to determine how a state is in any of the three categories. Society is strongly affected by decisions of who, what and when does an individual receive any types of goods or services. Government is the structure, buildings and institutions that are held within politics.
Democracy and the challenges it is facing has been the main topic in the field of international politics since some Authoritarian regimes have raised again as a great power after a long time of absence. In this essay, we will look at some of the challenges facing the international democracy based on the work of Azar Gat “ The Return Of Authoritarian Great Powers”. The article is presenting the author view on the rise of authoritarian regimes as the main challenge of liberal democracy. The main part of my essay will be an illustration and reflection on a number of arguments that have been brought by the author. Additionally and before concluding my piece I will establish my own argument as a critical response to the article or more specifically to the Economic efficiency argument brought by Azar Gat.
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:
Nationalism has played a crucial role in world history over the past centuries. It continues to do so today. For many, nationalism is indelibly associated with some of the worst aspects of modern history, such as the destructive confidence of the Napoleon’s army and the murderous pride of Nazi Germany. Large numbers of people, descent in their hearts, have carried out unbelievable atrocities for no better reason than their nation required them to. Authoritarian and totalitarian regime have crushed dissent, eliminated opposition, and trampled on civil liberties in the name of the nation.
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.
We have all heard the terms “right wing conservatives” and “left wing liberals,” but many people are not quite sure which wing is correct. Although both sides have good arguments for separate issues, in my opinion, liberalism should be guiding our thinking when it comes to our economic ways, and political rights; liberalism is the root of our American soil. Many people believe that steering away from liberalism is the right way to create change, and build upon our freedoms, but by returning to what our country was built upon, we can continue the aim of a free, fair and prosperous society. This paper will guide you through the two main phases of liberalism: classical and modern; their manifestations; and how as a democracy, liberalism represents a strategy practical for a free society.
“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)
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"
“Nationalism cannot only aggravate ethnic relations within the state, but it can also spill over borders and increase the likelihood of international conflict”
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
Liberalism was an important concept but it also lost some of its importance in order to emerge as a new form. In the today’s world hardly any one speaks for the freedom and 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.