[In this first part, the main arguments from Fukuyama's article " The End of History" and his 1992 book on which this piece of writing is based will be briefly laid out, with the second part expanding and relating to the real world, though still relating to Fukuyama's work.]
In simple terms, the “end of history” is a concept, both political and philosophical, coined by Francis Fukuyama, to indicate the highest point, as well as the ultimate point, of humanity’s socio, economic and cultural evolution. This supposed end-point would be characterised by the universalisation of liberal democracy as the only form of government. Seemingly, this is similar to the philosophy of Karl Marx where history is perceived as a linear progression, moving in “dialectical” phases.
In 1989, Fukuyama wrote the renowned article titled “The End of History” as a celebrator and optimist of liberal democracy. Although he was not predicting or judging anything or event, the fact that the collapse of the Berlin Wall happened to occur during the same year nonetheless made the 2 relate. Therefore in 1992, Fukuyama wrote the book “The End of History and the Last Man” to expand his ideas but to also further prove his conviction. With a sudden shift in tone, the book is no longer a euphoric celebration of the end of the Cold War, but instead discusses all the things that could go wrong at the end of history. In addition, the last man does not refer to the last human being on earth, but metaphorically warns us of what might happen if we lose our essential human qualities -- drive, animation, creation, recreation.
To be more specific, Fukuyama establishes his worries targeted in a possible era where liberal democracy triumphs that humans may become slightly unimaginative, with politics becoming dull. We won’t be like machines or robots, but just decent, safe, and boring, simply running out of steam. Just as Tocqueville noted in “Democracy in America”'s volume 2, as democracy dominates, we could just drift along the river of history. There would be no specific destination, but history will just make us who we are.
There are 2 suggested models for the end of history from Fukuyama: the first being a Japanese-like model, and the second one being the European Union.
As for Japan, it is a country that is incredibly peaceful with a very low crime rate, prosperous. It emerged from WW2 as a modern, liberal democratic and technologically sophisticated state. This record period of economic growth was labelled the “Japanese Economic Miracle” as it became the 2nd largest economy (after the US) between the post-war era to the end of the Cold War. It was once thought that Japan was to become the next superpower approaching the 21st century. Yet the Japanese bubble burst in late 1991 and the stock market crashed. The country got stuck in deflation and never came back. Its population started to age and stagnate, meaning that the workforce could no longer expand. Although the term “Lost Decade” initially referred to the period between 1991-2001, the fact that the Japanese economy indicated no sign of comeback allowed this term to live through the next few decades. As for politics, although trying to rescue and reimagine itself to prevent surfing the river of history, it was instead caught in the reeds: zero-interest rates, expansion of the money supply, expansionary fiscal policies have all been limited attempts in hope of savouring Japan from the “Lost Decade”s.
Moving on, the bureaucratic enterprise of the European Union (EU), can be seen as an imaginative way of doing politics as it tries to induce a more decent and prosperous way of living that is better than before. At the same time, it is also unimaginative and dull since no big ideas seem to surface, and nor has any significant political transformations been seen (unless you include Brexit I guess). Interestingly, the EU is the polar opposite of Japan. Politics within the organisation is not dull, but now seems fragile, fractious, and looks like a victim of its hubris such as the Euro (dim growth prospects; currency without country; debt sustainability) and difficult relations with major superpowers. Despite the politicians within it wishing that politics were dull so comfort could be sought, an awful lot is actually at stake.
Both models in Fukuyama’s eyes are neither desirable nor safe. They are static and do not seem optimistic. Nonetheless, Fukuyama asserts that liberal democracy as a “package” cannot be proved or disproved when or if we reach the end of history. This is because the “package” has 2 primary virtues which combined make it almost invincible -- prosperity and respect.
Prosperity and peace provide a stable society where people can expect a long comfortable life where hopefully the next generation will be better off than the previous. This shows that results are delivered by whoever runs or governs. Moving on, dignity and respect refer to giving the people an outlet for voice and expression so that their desires can be heard. Everyone has the right to complain, such as during election time: even if the result is not what you intended, at least you had a chance to vote and voice your opinion.
Together, results and respect in such form seem to only be possible to exist in a liberal democratic state, and this is the reason deep down why Fukuyama stands so firmly with his arguments.
Comentários