Fukuyama's nonsense

Francis is at it again in his article in the excellent International Herald Tribune. I say nonsense since I do not agree with many of the things Fukuyama has said in the past. The End of History is the best example, a book that proclaims that liberal democracy is the be all and end all, and humanity has a reached a point that we cannot go over, that history will cease to be made once liberal western democracy has spread to the rest of the world. Or to quote Fukuyama himself “we may be witnessing the end of history as such: that is, the end of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of government”.

What is ironic about his views that “the end of history was supposed to be about the victory of Western, not simply American, values and institutions, making liberal democracy and market-oriented economics the only viable choices”. History shows us not that liberal democracy is the be all and end all of humanity, taking its origins from Greek and Roman ideas, but that history does not end. Liberal democracy is not the be all, it is just another step in history. People like Fukuyama make claims like this in every generation, but are proved wrong by time, and by history.

The reason Europeans I think despise US unilateralism, is the European history is a patchwork of wars and battles, all fought by countries who believed they were right. America believes it is right, but since international war has never really occured on it own soil it has not learned the lessons European nations have.

I think to this extent Fukuyama agrees with me, but he fails to draw the conclusion I would from the 2002 rift between the EU and the US. That war, at some point in the future, is possible between the two most powerful regions on earth. I would say it is a distinct possibility for the future.

3 thoughts on “Fukuyama's nonsense”

  1. Gavin-

    You are severly misunderstanding Fukuyama. The poverty of your critiques shines with unseen brilliance in this entry. Please consider thinking next time.

  2. Gavin, your comments about Fukuyama are right on target. Don’t let the shallow name-calling of Dr. Reeding intimidate you. Fukuyama’s thesis is shallow and you or I could write something just a plausible over one weekend. Good article.KB

  3. Fukuyama’s statement is indeedvery bold and I’m not sure I agree with it myself but he has to be taken into context. The end of history does not mean that events will stop happening but that politically the world seems to have found a stable and good way of moving forward with democracy and the undemocratic (which indeed are the poorest and worst treated citizens in the world) are only holding the rest of the world and will eventually move towards democracy too. Of course one has to keep in mind that democracy is only the best system from a number of bad ones but for all I know fukuyama could be right. What he says kinda makes sense.

Comments are closed.