What Fukuyama still isn’t getting right

Monarchies, military govts, oligarchies, authoritarian and majoritarian states continue flourishing around the world

While we have not seen much evidence to support the claim of the so-called “end of history,” this assertion continues to spark debates and cause much contention. Fukuyama, the Stanford University professor, had made this famous claim in a 1989 essay, and then in his 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man. Fukuyama had argued that after the collapse of communism, the world was about to see a global spread of liberal democracy and Western-style capitalism. Yet, events over the past three decades or so indicate that the world has hardly adopted the route of Fukuyama’s prediction.

Fukuyama himself is, however, not quite ready to admit the failure of his prediction, even if he recognises that his initial assertion needed further qualifications. In a recent interview with Foreign Policy, Fukuyama has now acknowledged that there are many obstacles and pitfalls on the road leading to the supposed end of history. Fukuyama’s original thesis had not foreseen the rise of identity politics, and how identity fueled resentments would undermine democracy, even in powerful countries like the United States.

Yet, instead of admitting to the failure of liberal democracy, Fukuyama points to the emergence of an intriguing new route to power within established democracies. He gives the example of the former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, for instance, who figured out a way to gain political power by combining political power with economic power. Berlusconi built this media empire which allowed him to run for office, and then once in power, he used his political power to protect his media empire. Similarly, Trump has also used Fox News and Twitter to dominate the narrative for a significant proportion of the American populace. The cult-like following of the now former American president gave rise to new kinds of loyalties, based on conspiracy theories and ‘alternative’ facts.

Yet, to Fukuyama, the Trump era does not signal a demise of democracy nor a defeat of liberalism. Instead, Fukuyama is encouraged by the fact that corporate America did not really want to buy into Trump’s rhetoric. He points out how Trump had antagonist relations with billionaires, such as the owner of Amazon. Ultimately, Twitter and Facebook also distanced themselves from Trump.

Many people would still argue that the rise of political leaders such as Trump has caused major damage to liberal democracies, which will take a lot of time to fix. Moreover, there are a lot of other problems in the world today which show that the triumphant spread of liberalism is certainly nowhere in sight. Monarchies, military governments, oligarchies, authoritarian and majoritarian states continue flourishing around the world.

The communism experiment may have failed, and the new left has not offered anything substantive beyond gains made by the social democrats decades ago. Yet, the emergence of illiberal democracies in countries like Hungary or Russia, which tolerate little dissent, and have given rise to crony capitalism, is not a cause for celebration either.

Perhaps, it is time that we also lower our expectations about the potential of liberalisation.

Fukuyama still refuses to give up on his claim that only democratic governance can fulfil basic human needs and that there were no better alternatives which hold the promise for a better future. Representative democracy may indeed be what the world needs. But the problem remains that what we more often see are the prevalent distortions of liberal democracy, which have created massive global inequality, and which continue to thrive on xenophobia, and the marginalisation of ethnic and religious minorities.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 19^th, 2021.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.