In his article The End of History?, Francis Fukuyama attempts to answer the question of whether the end of the 20th century would see a move towards liberal democracy, or whether it would continue to see the implementation of failed ideological systems. Throughout the article, Fukuyama discusses the rise and fall of non-liberal ideologies - such as communism and fascism – and argues that human history should be viewed as an ongoing shift towards democracy, which he views as emergent and ultimately unchallenged. He suggests that in spite of the fact that its spread is still not complete throughout the world, he holds that the idea of democracy has ultimately won the battle of the ideologies due to the spread of the consumerist culture throughout the world and to the gradual change to democratic thought in countries such as China, Japan or Russia which previously strongly embraced contrary ideologies. Fukuyama proposes that liberal democracy will come as a result of two factors. The first and more obvious being economic reasons, and the second being what he refers to as “struggle for recognition”, which explains history as man’s search for recognition, as in a contradiction between a master and slave. He holds that in a universally homogenous state all contradictions are resolved and all man’s needs are satisfied, and therefore there are no large conflicts and no need for statesmen. All that remains is the economic activity.
Fukuyama discusses the work of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel who first proposed this change, as well as the work of French philosopher Alexandre Kojeve, who gives more recent interpretations of Hegel’s ideas. Hegel’s main indicator of the triumph of the democratic system was the Fren...
... middle of paper ...
...between countries. This is an obvious contradiction to Fukuyama’s model, which suggests that only economic activity will exist. From a Christian worldview, man’s inherently evil nature will prevent the world from ever reaching a perfected form a democracy.
While I don’t agree with all of Fukuyama’s analysis, I think it does provide some solid arguments and examples for the superiority of a liberal democratic system over that of a communist system as it displays how countries have benefitted from adopting a liberal democracy, even if they are only in practice to a limited degree. However, in spite of his article’s optimism, I cannot help but feel that he arrives to his conclusions a little too certainly. Communism has certainly proven to be a failed system, but due to man’s evil nature I don’t believe mankind will ever completely arrive at a perfected ideology.
were not as radical as the transformation to democratic thought. It is here that Wood points out the “uncontrolla...
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
...ed. As quoted by Nash, “it produced the greatest flow of energy since the Puritan Movement a century before”. Followers believed a new source of authority was needed, and the actions many took led to revitalization of mind and body. Inadvertently, this led to the creation of new branches of religion, and each citizen was able to make the individual choice to believe what they wanted to believe. This led to a more extensive sense of individualization. The masses had, over time been building up a sense of needing something new, a restoration of how they lived their lives. They knew that in order to obtain change, they needed to take action themselves, determined by the ideology of democracy. Gary Nash’s essay entitled “The Transformation of European Society” delineated how the “democratic personality” effectively impacted social, economic, and religious conditions.
In conclusion, religions not being accepted by other people and unequal distribution of land led to a small decline in a democracy being formed. Although, there were many small and minor improvements, they did not make that period more democratic. In fact, in the Connecticut Gazette, it showed that the people were yearning and in many ways begging for a democracy and wanted independence (Doc L). Even though that happened, the democracy they wanted did not get as far as they hoped for. Yet, it created doors for more to be done later.
He then further explains the growth pattern between those eras which has led to the current ideology of liberal democracy. He believes that liberal democracy is the best ideology and that it is the final stage in human ideological development. He further suggested that human history should be viewed as a progression or battle of ideologies. With the current trend of universalization of liberal democracy and individualism, both characteristics of Western culture, he argues that Western liberal democracy has become the grand victor. He also asserts that despite the liberal democratic ideology has not completely been realized in the material world, the idea has been accepted and has triumphed over all alternate ideologies.
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
In order to understand how these influences or principles have spread, it must also be figured out how these principles developed. Again here, it must be asserted that the historical context is of vital importance because it reveals the manner in which some actions that took place at particular points in time had formed consensus notions. It is these notions that were carried through and developed into what have become western democratic principles. These had evidently developed with the passage of time due to the occurrences that took place on the American continent; the types of people that landed there were responsible for the influences they had in the formulation of law. Though other western countries experienced similar transition America is one country that must be particularly mentioned (Kagan et al, 2000).
Liberalism-derived from the Latin word ‘liber’ which means “free and not enslaved”- is seen as the dominant ideology of the western civilisation. During the European history before the modern...
Around the 20th century, the end of the First World War cleared the way for the formation of democratic regimes. Why they had not been successful, why the people didn't use the opportunity to establish a democratic political system and why did the dictatorships appear, is still unclear, but it is a very discussible subject. The decisive role in these processes was the human being. It was the object of the cause, but on the other hand he was also the subject - executor of all the problems as well.
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
Christiano, Tom. "Democracy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 27 July 2006. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.
He answers criticisms with only one possible route of action and one possible outcome. In his mind, a communist society would easily become a utopia. However, a look at the countries in the world today who attempted communism will shows failures across the board. Those among the proletariat who rose up to lead the rest against the bourgeoisie became the leaders of the countries and enjoy the same decadence and superiority that they sought to abolish. Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin was a bloodbath. Mao’s Red China was a hotbed of human rights violations. Cuba under Castro was a system of corruption. All were absolute dictatorships in which the proletariat had no say, the same as
...ople define democracy. Not only does it bring up the complex question of what a democracy really is but also, depending on the definition of democracy, it question whether the theory is accurate or inaccurate. For instance, if one views democracy to be a system of government where there is equality and the people are free and autonomous, it could be argued that democracies go to war with each other and have in fact done so. On the other hand, if the definition of democracy is clear, straightforward maybe even restrictive, the truth of the theory comes forth. If democracy is defined as a political system where universal suffrage exists, then it really can be argued that democracies do not conflict with each other and no democracies have. This does lead to the conclusion, that for this theory to apply, countries considered to be democracies must really be democratic.
Democracy is robust, widely accepted and highly anticipated around the world. It is the triumphant form of government; dominantly used in Europe, North and South and America and becoming reformed and taking new roots in Africa and Asia. Although the term democracy is based on its Greek origin, demos kratos, meaning people rule, the term cannot be simply understood as such. Due to vast coverage, the adaptation of democracy has varied greatly, whether regionally, nationally, by state or through different branches of government. Perhaps this can be advantageous when the different categorizations listed above can use democracy to rule and suit themselves best, but other factors, such as globalization and neoliberalism, has caused the need for
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.