The End of History - Essay Example

Are We at the End of History What we may be witnessing in not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. (Fukuyama 1989 : 2) In the controversial 1989 essay titled "The End of History", Francis Fukuyama attempted to give Western capitalism's victory over communism a Hegelian interpretation. He argued that the end of history has eliminated all but one intellectual option for the future evolution of the planet. Liberal Democracy and the 'American way of life' were hailed as the only rational coherent system of values and practices; everything else that happened in the past was only leading up to this new Enlightenment and triumph of reason, in a teleological sense of inevitability. In a way, neither is the advent of man the end of evolution, nor is the widespread prevalence of liberal democracy that we witness in our day the "end" of history. Yet they represent effective points of resolution. If we were to assert that man is the pinnacle of natural evolution, it would be factually very incorrect as man modern man evolved barely 100-120 thousand years ago, and evolution takes place in a geological time scale spanning millions of years. Though it may be difficult for us to conceive any life form beyond human beings, evolution is simply a naturally phenomenon that cannot be stopped and has not stopped with humans. Humans may only be representing a transitional life form, or dolphins may evolve to be more intelligent that humans ever were, in a million years or so. We also would like to think American-type liberal democracy as being the pinnacle of evolution of political organisation of society, but we could be wrong. In the course of evolution, there occurred a decisive encounter between Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens for over ten thousand years, in which Homo sapiens sapiens finally emerged as the survivor to assert supremacy over the planet, about 28,000 years ago. Eerily echoing this epic evolutionary clash between the two rival human species, there raged a monumental battle in the twentieth century between communism and democracy during the years of the Cold War, in which the forces of democracy finally emerged victorious and asserted supremacy over the planet. However, there is nothing intrinsically final about both these phenomena. Man has of course no rival on the planet now, and liberal democracy too, even with all its defects and shortcomings, appears the sole viable alternative for the present and the future of human society. However, if we were to claim that man is the culmination and the end of natural evolution, we could be accused of brazen anthropocentrism. Similarly, if we were to claim that democracy is the culmination, and more than that, the end itself, of ideological evolution, we could perhaps be accused of "American-centrism". Yet the fact remains that, considered on a rational basis, emergence of man represents an evolution of consciousness that offers a satisfactory resolution to the six hundred million years of natural evolution, despite his war-like nature and other selfish, brutish tendencies. In this sense, enlightened liberal democracy too, notwithstanding its myriad inadequacies, offers a satisfactory resolution to the ten thousand years of evolution of human society. If Neanderthals took over the Cro-Magnon man (that is, us), of if Hitler won the Second World War, or if the Soviet Union somehow succeeded in annihilating the United States in the Cold War, would we have been at the end of history too Certainly, Neanderthals were very robust, they had already been flourishing for about two hundred thousand years when the Cro-Magnon man arrived on the ice age European scene and made his presence felt. There were also many times in the Second World War, where the German forces were on the ascendency, and in fact Hitler stood high chances of winning war at many crucial points. In the end, Germany's undoing lay in Hitler's persistent maniacal folly more than anything else. However, if Adolf Hitler had been a slightly more reasonable leader, Germany could have won the war, and Hitler's thousand-year golden era of Third Reich would have been established. There seems to be no intrinsic logical necessity for either Homo sapiens sapiens, as against the Neanderthals, to represent the pinnacle of evolution, or for liberal democracy, as against fascism or communism or fundamentalism, to represent the final global form of political government. Yet, viewed from a larger perspective, natural evolution has by and large been a continual improvement of species. And inasmuch as the Neanderthals were of inferior levels of intelligence and artistic creativity when compared to the modern man, even if the Neanderthals exclusively remained the dominant species of the planet for a hundred thousand years more, they would not have represented the end of evolution. Either they themselves could have mutated or matured and grown into an acceptably intelligent and creative species or they would have been, eventually, taken over by a more intelligent species which would have offered a better denouement to the long story of natural evolution. At least it would seem so. However, as the paleontologist Tattersall observes, evolution is not a strictly linear process: Evolution is not a straight-line process, each successive species bringing its lineage closer to some goal, preordained or otherwise. There are many ways of playing the evolutionary game. (1999 : 194) That is to say, there is a degree of linearity, but not in any rigorous sense. It is the same with history. We would like to think there is a Hegelian-type linear evolution manifest in the history of human society. To some extent, and in a much looser sense, there is. Thus, even if we Hitler did succeed in establishing his Reich that lasted for a thousand years, it would not have represented the end of history. "The end of history" is not a factual, historical concept, it is a logical, philosophical, evolutionary concept. Even if fascism and totalitarianism, or today's raging Islamic theocracy or the rapidly spreading Christian fundamentalism, emerge as dominant ideological outlook of the humankind and last not just for a thousand years, but for a ten thousand years, they would still not represent the end of history. Because, even if by some chance circumstance, they happen to last thousands of years, they nonetheless do not possess an inherent stability that could offer a meaningful grounding to the human society. Therefore, they would eventually have to give way to more rational ideologies, or ideology - which is liberal democracy. Man is a rational, intelligent creature, seeking happiness and meaning in life - this is the ground reality of human nature. Only that form of ideology and government would prove stable in the final analysis, which conforms to the fundamental rational proclivities of man. The only form of government that comes closest in presenting a suitable satisfactory expression for the innate nature of man is, so far as we can conceive, liberal democracy. If the Soviet Union won the Cold War, Marxists would have perhaps exultantly announced the end of history, since Marx prophesied the eventual prevalence of communism. But as it turned out, the United States won the Cold War, and a philosopher championing democracy and Western values heralds the end of history. Here, a cynic may be eager to point out the pure relativity of standpoints between communism and capitalism. It is the winners who write history, after all. In all fairness, and for the fear of being accused of being dogmatic fascists or fundamentalists ourselves, we have to acknowledge the relativity of standpoints, and the fact that very little can be ascertained with absolute certainty in the theoretical and ideological realm as it pertains to political and social spheres. Yet, viewed from our perspective, Western-type liberal democracy seems to be the only form of ideology that can facilitate the maximum expression of human nature, providing all human beings optimal scope for growth, development, and achievement. Therefore while admitting the theoretical possibility of us being proven wrong at some distant point in future, we may ascertain for now, with a fair degree of confidence and in accordance with the best of our reason and judgement, that we are at the end of history. In so far as liberal democracy has taken root both in the consciousness and social organisation of modern man, and most of the current trends seem to point only at a deeper entrenchment of liberal democracy and Western liberal value system in the decades and centuries to come, we live in an age that represents a sort of climax. It is a meaningful resolution of man's age-long quest of ideal form of government and society. However, by no means, this resolution represents the final resolution. The climax too is only a sort of climax. Hence it would be more appropriate to say that we are at the beginning of the end of the history, hopefully, than outright assert that we are living at the end of history, as if the paradise has already come! Maybe, in a hundred years or so, if all goes well and there is a steady and steadfast progress in human society, we could well be at that stage which Hegel and Fukuyama call the end of history. Human history has been a long and hard struggle. And the battle is only half won yet. If anything, a phase of more intense struggle lies ahead of us, not in attaining democracy, of course, but in guarding and preserving it and make its practical reality come closer to its spirit. History does not end. Amidst the emergence of democratic functioning across the planet we should not forget that the oldest democracies - the United States, Great Britain, France - continue to evolve. (Todd 2003 : 16) Everything needs to evolve, constantly. Indeed, at the beginning of the twentieth century, we are in a desperate need of rapid progress, improvement and evolution of human society in most parts of the globe. With all the seething turmoil and turbulence of our times, it may be in fact facetious to associate the concept of the end of history to the ongoing phase of human history. Fukuyama's observation is perhaps completely off the mark, and yet it is a pointer in the right direction. It is a logically valid observation, but factually totally incorrect. Liberal democracy is of course better than monarchy, fascism or communism, but it has come nowhere near being the ideal form of government that can bring about peace, prosperity and fulfillment to people and nations. However, the emergence global democracy since the end of the cold is a definite step in the right direction. How soon we would reach the end of history now depends on how efficient and effective liberal democracy can become in the years and decades to come. In spite of all the criticism levied against it, liberal democracy is an ideal form of government. When practiced in the way it is meant to be, a genuine liberal democracy beautifully balances the concepts of freedom and responsibility. However, achieving such an ideal system of government is easier said than done. Simply because countries are now democratic in name, we cannot assume that democracy is really being practiced in these countries in the way it is intended to be. The practicalities and issues involved in implementing liberal democracy are complicated, especially for many of the Third World and Eastern European countries that are as yet only aspiring to realise greater political freedom. Any country that is just emerging from decades of authoritarian rule and oppression cannot hope to become a perfect democratic nation overnight just by holding general elections, free and fair though they may be. Fukuyama's suggestion that in 1989, with the dismantling of the Berlin wall, we reached the end of history overnight is in a way preposterous. At the most, the general elections can mark a good beginning. For nations newly entering into the open space of democracy, (Nepal and Iraq come most prominently to mind at the moment), there is usually a long way to go before they can firmly stand on strong foundations of social, political and economic freedom. More than a form of government, liberal democracy is a culture that has to rise from the grass-root levels instead of simply being imposed from above. The mindset of the people and the institutions of liberty that underpin liberal democracy must be built up steadily, and in reality it may often be a protracted and painstaking process. Above all, it is a matter of public awareness; the need is for the common people as well as noted personalities of the society to engage in extensive discussions and debates about a range of issues and ideas germane to the ideal of creating and sustaining a liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is therefore much more than a political process, it entails a greater maturity of human mind, which is unfortunately very hard to come by. Liberal democracy can of course straightaway provide freedom of thought and freedom of expression. But it cannot as easily make people to think and communicate at optimal levels. Political debate is crucial in the success of liberal democracy. The rise of the mass media immensely facilitated political deliberation in liberal democracy. Since the nineteenth century new forms of communication and information exchange have permitted fast-paced political exchange and deliberation; in our own age a panoply of high-velocity technologies (most important of them being television) allows liberal democratic citizens to express and exchange views, and squabble over competing interests, thus propagating political debate in real time (Scheuerman 2004). Therefore, debate, a strong system of rule of law and a growing market economy seem to be some of the necessary conditions both before and after liberal democracy is properly established. However, we must remember that even if these necessary conditions are maintained they cannot be equated with sufficient conditions which have much wider scope. A liberal democracy demands free and fair elections, which are held regularly and in which all its adult citizens are allowed to vote - this is of course a phenomenon we have been witnessing more commonly in more and more countries of the world in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. However, democracy also requires a basis of many core social values such as the commitment to fundamental human rights, equality, rule of law, individual freedom, freedom of expression, private property, a free market, and of course the separation of powers between legislative and executive bodies. A scholar of American political parties, Ceasar, asserts that: Liberal democracy has need of an intellectual discipline or enterprise in society that is devoted to maintaining it. The absence of this enterprise today... puts liberal democracy at risk, if not immediately, then in the long run. (1992 : 1) Intellectual discipline and enterprise in society are probably the reasons why liberal democracy occasionally seems to have a unique capability of springing up and succeeding in the unlikeliest of places. Two classic examples of democracy drastically taking root in unfavorable environments and fostering prosperity and progress in its wake are post-war Japan and West Germany. The respective backgrounds of feudalism and fascism in these countries can hardly be considered suitable for the viability of democracy. Yet, owing to the peculiar circumstances after the Second World War, the enormous moral and economic support given by the United States, and the intellectual caliber and economic enterprise characteristic of these two former Axis nations, democracy not only survived but led to unprecedented levels of general affluence. This, however, cannot be the case with all the myriad small and big nations that may have a democratic form of governance, but lack the moral and intellectual basis to sustain it. Democracy is a complex phenomenon that relies on an intricate set of place-and-time dependent factors for its validity and viability. The important thing to note about democracy is that even when a neatly functioning liberal democracy seems to be in place, people cannot just celebrate and rest. A democracy is not something that can be once achieved and left there; it has to be constantly maintained, and that requires unceasing vigilance on the part of part of the people, the intelligentsia, the students, the political scientists, and the media, the watchdogs of democracy. The story is not over once democracy is achieved. We cannot simply relax and declare the end of history. Achieving democracy is in fact only a first step. The crucial first step may itself be half of the journey, but the real half of it, which will validate the true worth of accomplishment of democracy, is yet to be seen. Further, whether in budding democracies or mature democracies, the democratic form of government as such is highly prone to corruption and abuse, though not to the extent of non-democratic forms of government. In spite of being highly appealing in theory, the character of democracy is, unfortunately, often marred by poor and bad leadership. It is this kind of dysfunctional democracy that surfaces from time to time in the state of affairs of various nations, which then goes on to discredit the very notion of democracy (meaning of course, liberal democracy). However, in spite of some of its inherent systemic weaknesses that become actualized thorough ineffective or corrupt leadership and/or people failing to exercise their constitutional rights, democracy is here to stay. It is going to play an ever more impactful role in promoting the welfare and progress of nations. Freedom shall thrive. We instinctively associate freedom and progress with democracy, and rightly so, owing to the huge democratic legacy of the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. However, the advent of widespread universal democracy in the post-Cold War period marks only a symbolic victory rather than the real victory. These two are different concepts, yet the symbolic victory can inspire us to travel more enthusiastically and with more determination towards the final true victory. We are in no sense living at the end of history, but since the 1990's this much longed-for end is in sight, provided we have the vision and will to achieve it. We must not, however, forget that this end, if and when it comes, will only mark a fresh inspiring beginning of the human saga, which will never end as long as the human race continues. "It is possible to believe that all the past is but the beginning of a beginning, and that all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn. It is possible to believe that all the human mind has ever accomplished is but the dream before the awakening" - H.G. Wells, "The Discovery of the Future", 1902 References: Ceasar, J.W. (1992) Liberal Democracy and Political Science (The Johns Hopkins Series in Constitutional Thought). Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History The National Interest. Retrieved 05May 2007 from http://www.marion.ohio-state.edu/fac/vsteffel/web597/Fukuyama_history.pdf Scheuerman,W.E. (2004). Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time. Balitmore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Tattersall, I. (1999). The Last Neanderthal : The Rise, Success, and Mysterious Extinction of Our Closest Human Relatives. Oxford, UK : Westview Press Todd, E., Delogu, J. (Tr.) (2003). After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order (European Perspectives: a Series in Social Thought and Cultural Criticism). New York : Columbia University Press. Wells, H.G. 1902. The Discovery of the Future. Lecture given at the Royal Institute of London. Retrieved 05May 2007 from http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/ Read More