A CRITICAL STUDY OF FRANCIS FUKUYAMA’S IDEA OF LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY

BY

OKOROMI PAUL OSAREME

MATRIC NO: SS/PP/1987

AN ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, SAINTS

PETER AND PAUL MAJOR SEMINARY BODIJA, IBADAN IN AFFILIATION

WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE

IN PHILOSOPHY

BODIJA, IBADAN.

JUNE, 2012.

DEDICATION

This essay is dedicated to the most Holy Trinity and our Lady of Perpetual help

AND

To My Beloved parents, Mr. and Mrs. Dickson John Okoromi, who have been source of

my inspiration in life

AND

To the loving memory of my beloved brothers and sister Sunday Dominic Okoromi,

Charity Okoromi, and Kelvin Joseph Idemudia who lost their lives in the 2002 Ikeja,

Lagos Nigeria Bomb blast, and also to all the innocent victims who have died in different

Bomb blasts in Nigeria.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Gratitude according to Cicero“is not only thegreatestof virtues, butthe parent of

allother virtues” while Thomas Fuller holds “ingratitude is the worst of all vices”. It is

from this background that I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to God, for taking care

of me always and having notwithdrawn his confirming albeit often-silent presence from

my life. And also to the Blessed Virgin Mary our lady of perpetual help for her motherly

care all through this period

My most profound gratitude also goes to my family members, especially my

parents, Mr.Dickson John and Mrs. Agatha Okoromi,in whom my life originated. From

whom I learned how to live, believe, and persevere; with whom I can share my deepest

desires and thoughts; and to whom this whole thesis is dedicated. And my sisters; Esther,

Erica and Blessing (my little baby), whom I love dearly, whose persevering character and

love of learning I am so proud of, and whose names are often before my own in prayers.

Due thanks to Rev. Fr. Dr. Damian Ilodigwe, mydevoted and caring thesis

supervisor, for shaping my reasoning; for exposing me to a whole new horizon

ofintellectual challenges; for counter-balancing my tendency to be self-indulgent

inmundane achievements; and for being totally invested in my work.

Also I am obliged to thank the congregation of the Oblates of St. Joseph;

particularly the entire Nigerian Delegation my dearly Very. Rev. Fr.Michael Ademola

Odubela OSJ(the superior delegate) for his paternalistic love and care to me, Fr.

Bonaventure Ashibi OSJ, Fr. Vitalis Odo OSJ, Fr.Cyril Nwamu OSJ, Fr. Ekpayip Joseph

OSJ, and all the oblates priests of the delegation. Tomy fellow sojourners in this journey

to the priesthood: Rev. Solomon Mbah OSJ, Rev. Uduak Innocent OSJ, Rev. Osho Joseph

OSJ, Emegharibe, Jirgba, Ntia, Ossy, Alabai,Ejagam, Osagie, Agbessime, Lukpata,

Ezekpeazu, Robert, my classmates, Kyrian, Udeme, Simone, Justin, Valentine,

Baki,Dogbo, and Tiza. My younger ones in the house: Ordam, Micheal, Afolabi,Dongwa,

Adaka, Philip, Agubueze, Dania, Tawo, Adedeji, Braimoh, Denis, Andrew,

Okoh,Charbel, Norbert, Isaac, Asom, Benedict, Okem, Peter,Ujomo, Fidelis, Dominic,

Orduen, Gerard, David, Adejumo, Akpos, and Adamu. I solemnly acknowledgeDonatus,

Sule, and Marcel, who were always giving me their laptops for the typing and editing of

this work.I am also obliged to thankStephen, Bonaventure, Jeffery and Ojobo who took

their time to read and edit this essay. Also I appreciate Jimohand Philemon who bind the

hard copies of this work. I am ineffably grateful to Rev. Fr. Leo OSJ and Fr. Boniface

OSJ who were my first formators in this journey, who introduced me to philosophy and

spirituality at the beginning of my seminary formation.

My amiable lecturers and formators of great intellectual and spiritual repute the

ones I had direct and indirect contact with, I say a very big thank you to you for

collaborating to my human, spiritual, academic, social, and psychological formation. To

my classmates, now the philosopher kings and those who started this journey with us but

couldnot complete it I wish we were just starting but history is directional and moving

towards a goal we all have to progress forward I enjoyed every time I spent with you all. I

say Great Bodija we all started and Great Bodija will bring us back again in future.

To my special friends, Fr. Simeon Irabour, Vivian Gerard, Orchi, Fr.

PanachyOgbede, Paul Idedia, SabastineUkegheson, Elizabeth Ogbede, Ehis, Otaigbe,

Omoye, Adesua, SeunAransiola, Fr. Anthony Nwosu, Fr. Peter Awobolaji, Moses Tete,

Samuel Oyinba,JamesAlabi, Emmanuel Eyedu, UzomaEdwinaOgwudileUdeogba,

EmmanuellaAyinche, Johnson Kunle, UgoIgboanusi, Jeff Nwoke, Barrister

AmakaCelestinaEze-Igwebe, mama Oyeleye, Fr. Gabriel Odunaiya, Bolton Jona and to

the myriads of people notmentioned here for having come this far since four years ago.

Please forgive me if I could not remember your name, for I am writing this page while

feeling high out ofexhaustion after a twelve-month-long intellectual marathon. But I am

thankful for yourbeing where you were, either for me or against me, as long as you were

around and aside me

Okoromi Paul Osareme

June 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

CERTIFICATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDEMENT iv-vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii-viii

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER ONE: A CONCEPTUAL DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE OF

LIBERAL DEMOCACY

1.1.WHAT IS DEMOCRACY 4

1.2.THE CONCEPT LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 6

1.3.THE ORIGIN OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 7

1.4.THEORIES THAT INFLUENCED FUKUYAMA’S IDEAS OF LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY 11

CHAPTER TWO: FUKUYAMA’S IDEA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

2.1. FUKUYAMA’S POLITICS 18

2.2. THE UNITED STATES AS AN AGENT OF HISTORY 22

CHAPTER THREE: THE GLOBALISATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

3.1. THE FUKUYAMEAN SYSTEM OF HISTORY 28

3.2. THE LOGIC OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE 29

3.3. THE STRUGGLE FOR RECOGNITION 37

CHAPTER FOUR:ISSUES AND CRITICISMS ARISING FROM FUKUYAMA’S

IDEA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

4.1. WORLD WIDE LIBERAL REVOLUTIONS 48

4.2. POLITICAL STABILITY 49

4.3. THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS 52

4.4. THE RETURN OF AUTHORITARIAN GREAT POWERS 54

4.5. THE THEORIES OF HISTORY 56

4.6. GLOBAL CIVIL REPUBLICANISM 59

4.7. THE PROBLEMS IN AFRICA 61

CONCLUSION 64

BIBLIOGRAPHY 67

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

0.1. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

The end of the Cold War was not just a political landmark; it also triggered an

extraordinary intellectual event, inviting the construction of a number of ambitious

paradigms that attempt to account for it historical implications. In “The End of History”

1989 and “The End of History and The Last Man” 1992; Francis Fukuyama

controversially asserts that the end of the Cold War marks The End of History, that is the

triumph of liberal democracy represented by the United States of America. Also he

announced that the final defeat of Communism, will direct us to a conceivable perfection

of human ideology and institution.

Right from the time that Fukuyama made this declaration; history which is the

coherent and directional transformation of human societies,has come to let us know that

liberal democracy has continued to dominate as The United States of America is playing

a leading role. Citizens in liberal states have continued to enjoy: liberty, equality,

economic development, and political stability at the highest level.

Amidst these advantages of liberaldemocracy;a question seems to border the mind,

will liberal democracy survive the twenty-first century? This question steers up a great

problematique as far as the position of liberal democracy is concern in world’s politics.

These problems can be viewed from both intellectual works and events in the world as

they gradually unfold themselves to us.

The intellectual work of Samuel P. Huntington who in 1993 looking at world

events came out with his piece, “The Clash of Civilizations” and later“The Clash of

Civilizationsand the remaking of World Order” 1996. He suggested an alternative; by

taking an opposite position, sayingthat“the end of the Cold War primarily indicates the

end of conflicts within western civilization, where as a new conflict has begun with the

post-Cold War era, an inter-civilizational conflicts”. This thesis questions the objectivity

and universality of the end of history. Apart from the above, other factors that question

the position of liberal democracy include;the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia,

majoritarianism, theories of history, terrorism, civic republicanism and many other issues.

It is as a result of the above conceived problems in Fukuyama’s thesis of “The End

of History and the Last Man” that I have drawn inspiration to start this thesis.

0.2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This thesis has as it’s over all aim and objective to reassess Fukuyama’s paradigm of

liberal democracy. This is to do a critical study of Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy.

To do this, the essay will be looking at three different areas:

The first aim and objective is quite clear, this will involve clarification of the

concepts liberal democracy as Fukuyama presents it.

The second aim and objective, drawing from the first will be to explain Francis

Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy from his political and historical point of views.

Lastly; if the two above aims and objectives are very well established, the essay

will then go further to present the arguments for and against Fukuyama’s idea of liberal

democracy. This means the essay will also raise our consciousness to recent events in the

world and thereby making Fukuyama and his ideas known.

0.3. METHODOLOGY

The method for data collection for this essay is purely based on library research as well as

internet works. By this I mean that all information needed and collected for this work are

available in the library and internet. This does not negate or remove the idea of personal

reflections, which is also part of research methodology, which goes a long way to boost

the richness of this work.

0.4. SCOPE OF STUDY

The essay attempts a panoramic look at the problem of liberal democracy with particular

attention to Fukuyama’s idea of the topic.

CHAPTER ONE

A CONCEPTUAL DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

1.1. WHAT IS DEMOCRACY

Whatever else may be true of the human nature, it is human nature to live socially.

This immediately raises question about what social form human beings do,can and ought

to adopt for living together and taking decision of common concern. In the contemporary

world the most widely canvassed form is called democracy. By extension J.S.

Millasserts“it is superior to other forms of government”.1

If the above is the case, what then is the meaning of democracy? The concept

democracy is never easy to define. This is because it is an emotional word that changes

with the vagaries of time and space. But even amidst these controversies, there is a

generic definitionwhich sprang from its etymology.

Democracy etymologically comes from the Greek wordsdemos and kratia. Demos

means people whilekratia means rule.2Synthesing both it becomes rule by the people.

Democracy can then be defined as a system of government under which the people

exercise the governing power, either directly or through representatives periodically

1A. Appadorai, The Substance of Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), p.142.2William H. Riker, “Democracy”, Academic American Encyclopaedia,(U.S.A: Grolier Incorporated, 1998),p. 97.

elected by themselves.3 Furthermore, Fukuyama defines democracy as the right held

universally by all citizens, to have a share of politicalpower, that is, the right of all

citizens to vote and participate in politics.4From the above definitions it becomes clear

that for any form of government to qualify as democracy, it must rest on the legitimacy of

the people. This should not be mistaken for anarchy; rather it implies majority, minority

and all citizens that make up a geo political area involving in governmental process. By

majority rule, this means that the highest votes cast wins the election or takes the decision

making process. This process must also be free and fair. The majority must respect the

rights of the minority, because the minority also have equal rights as citizens of the state.

The majority should not lord it over the minority, and vice versa. Democracy also ensures

that; the elected representatives serve the needs of the citizens, so that any form of

centralised power is discouraged, and citizens’ rights and freedom are adequately

protected. What the above definitions and explanations presuppose is that there are

different ways citizens involve in government. These ways can be viewed from the forms

of democracy that we have. What are these forms of democracy?

FORMS OF DEMOCRACY

There are basically two forms of democracy namely: direct and representative

democracy.Direct Democracy is a formof democracy in which the citizens without the

intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in public

3A. Appadorai, Op.cit, p. 137.4Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and The Last Man, (London: Penguin Books, 1992), p. 43.

decision.Thissystem is clearly most practical with relatively small numbers of people.

Indirect Democracy is also known as representative government. Here the citizens

through a free and fair election; elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws,

and administer programs for the public good.5There are different forms of representative

democracy namely:parliamentary representative democracy,presidential representative

democracy,liberal representative democracyand so forth. Since the purpose of this write

up is on liberal democracy, my attention then will be on what is liberal

representativedemocracy?

1.2. THECONCEPT LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

Liberal Democracy is the synthesis of two closely but separated concepts;

democracy and liberal. Since I have already explained the meaning of democracy in the

previous page, my preoccupation here will be to give the meaning of liberal.Liberal is a

wordthat has its nominal form as liberalism. Liberalism therefore can be defined as a

belief in and commitment to a set of methods and policies that have as their common aim

greater freedom for individualman.6 This can be viewed from the classical and modern

perspectives. Classical Liberalism was first a limited appeal for constitutional

guaranteeand individual rights.7 Here the rights and freedom of the individual person is

not limited by the states. Furthermore, when these rights and freedom of the individual

5“Democracy”, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/democracy, (20/11/ 2011).6David G. Smith, “Liberalism”, David L. Saliu (Ed), International Encyclopaedia Of the Social SciencesVol 9 and 8, (New York: Macmillan Company and The free Press,1968), p. 276.7Ibid.,p. 280.

person became limited by the state, it took the title modern liberalism.8 The right to

participate in political powers is another liberal right. It is for this reason that liberalism

has been closely associated historically with democracy.Liberal Democracy is a

representative democracy; in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise

decision making power is subjected to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a

constitution that emphasises the protection of the rights and freedom of individuals, and

which places constraints on the leaders, and on the extent on which the will of the

majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.9Fukuyamadefining this concept

asserts, “the state in liberal democracy is by definition weak, preservation of a sphere of

individual rights, which means a sharp delimitation of its power.’10Liberal Democracy to

my understanding; isa form of government in which the people, both majorities and

minorities have equal rights and freedom to participate in government. If the above is the

case, how then has this concept developed over time?

1.3. THE ORIGIN OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

The concept liberal democracy and democracy are both coterminous. We cannot

have the former without the latter. The latter gave birth to the former. It is on this note,

that I shall do a historical trajectory of the concept.

8Ibid.9“Representative Democracy”, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/representativedemocracy, (25/11/ 2011).10Francis Fukuyama, Op.cit, p. 15.

THE ANCIENT ERA

This period experienced the first form of democratic government that is direct

democracy. This developed in the Greek-city states during the 6th century BC. The word

demos tell a lot about this. As Aristotle’s constitution pointed out the poor and the rich

participated fully in government, minors, women, slaves, and foreigners.11 This form of

government collapsed during the imperialism of Macedonia and Rome. Later, Republican

Rome, had people’s assemblies, in which the citizens met to elect.Only a minority of

Romans were citizens with votes in elections for representatives, they also lost their

power to the aristocrats senate and ultimately to the emperors.

MEDIEVAL ERA

In the middle ages, we see the establishment of representative body. The medieval

kings claimed divine authority to rule, which was championed by the church. They relied

on baronial vassals for practical advice rendered in councils. Gradually these councils

became elected representatives from the knightly and bungler classes. The Glorious

Revolution of 1688 and The English Rights of 1689 were all in a bit to promote

democratic government.

11William H. Riker,Op.cit, p. 97.

This era also experienced the creation of the British parliament. There was also a

gradual assertion of parliament supremacy over the hereditary monarch, the parliament

also transformed into a fully representative body elected by the entire adult population.

THE MODERN ERA

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries witnessed a tremendous improvement in

the development of liberal democracy. The first nation in modern history to adopt

democratic institution was the short lived Corsican Republics in 1755.12 The constitution

was based on enlightenment principles, which allowed for female suffrage.In this era, the

idea of popular sovereignty grew in line with Locke’s articulated theory of social contract.

This tradition was reflected in the declaration of independence, and American’s

revolution. The new United States of America became the first modern democratic States.

Rousseau’s social contract also nourished the French Revolution of 1789.This led to the

declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens. France however, did not achieve real

democracy until the third republic1870-1940.13 In Britain democratic government took

forms such as; the Reform Acts of 1832,1867 and 1884 greatly expanded parliamentary

suffrage. Colonies like; Australia, New Zealand, and Canada became self-governing

colonies. These were all indications of a world moving towards liberal democracy.

THE CONTEMPORARY ERA

12“Democracy”,http://en.wikipeadia.org/democracy/, (25/11/2011).13William H. Riker, Op.cit, p. 97.

The twentieth and twenty-first centuries mark the era of liberal democracy as

many will say. The twentieth century movement to liberal democracy has come in

successive waves which has been possible through wars, economic, religious and other

factors. The First World War resulted in the creation of new Nation-States from Europe.

Most of them were nominally democratic. In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the

great depression brought it to disenchantment. Most countries of Europe, Latin America,

and Asia turned dictatorship. This was seen in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal,

Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan among others.

The Second World War brought a definitive reversal of this trend in Western

Europe. The successful democratisation of America, Britain, France, Germany, Austria,

Italy, Japan, and India served as a model for the theory of later regime change. However,

most of Eastern Europe including the Soviet sector of Germany was forced into the non-

democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonisation and again most of the

new independent states had nominally democratic constitution. The end of the Cold War

finally brought liberal democracy to the place of universal recognition. It has been

speculated that this trend may continue in the future, to the point when liberal democracy

becomes the universal standard form of human society. This prediction forms the core of

Fukuyama’s “End of History and The Last Man”. The features of this type of government

can be subsumed under the following. It guarantees freedom and equality. It limits the

state’s power. It rests on the principle of popular sovereignty. It operates with the rule of

law. Capitalism is the major economic system. It is accountable to the citizens and the

government. Lastly it encourages periodic free and fair elections.

1.4. THEORIES THAT INFLUENCED FUKUYAMA’S IDEA OF LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY

THOMAS HOBBES’ LEVIATHAN

The Leviathan is Hobbes’ version of the social contract. The social contract holds

that the state is the result of an agreement entered into by men who originally had no

government. In the state of nature man is essentially selfish; he is moved to action not by

his intellect or reason, but by his appetite, desires and passion. War was inevitably caused

by competition, differences and love of glory. Amidst the war man has liberty to preserve

his own life. In order to make peace men give up so much of their natural rights to a

supreme leader.

From his analysis the following is conceived. A state is formed, and the following

are the consequences. The Government is sovereign and its power is absolute. Law is in

general not counsel, but command. Civil law is to every subject those rules which the

commonwealth hath commanded him by word, writing or other sufficient sign of the will

to make use of for the distinction of right and wrong. The liberty of the subject consists in

those rights which the sovereign has permitted. Those right which by the law of nature, of

self-preservation cannot be surrendered, in general the obligation of the subjects to the

sovereign last no longer than his power to protect them. As for other liberties, they depend

on the silence of the law, the subject being free to do what the sovereign has not

prohibited.

THE NATURAL RIGHT THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

The proponent of this theory is John Locke. He is known as the founder of

philosophical liberalism and modern representative democracy.14The natural right theory

was developed from his critique of the king rule. The state of nature is the antecedent to

all human government. In this state there is freedom and equality forall. Ones’ actions

don’t depend upon the will of other man. Amidst these freedom and equality, there is still

fear. In order to avert this, a contract is agreed upon.Locke holds that to further delimit the

state of nature of men. The state according to Locke is created through the medium of a

contract.Theindividual agrees with each other to give the community the natural right of

enforcing the law of reason, in order to protect their property,life,liberty and estates. This

constitutes the basis of democracy which is nothing but the consent of any member of

freemen capable of majority.And finally Locke affirms that legislative power constituted

by the consent of the people becomes thesupreme power in the commonwealth but is not

arbitrary. It must be exercised, as it is given for the good of the subjects. Since

government is in the nature of a trust and embraces only such powers as were transferred

at the time of change from a state of nature. The people therefore, can remove or alter the

legislative, when they find out that it is acting contrary to trust reposed in it.

14Ikenga K.E. Oraegbunam, “John Locke’s Political Liberalism: It’s Relevance to Nigeria” inWajopsWestvol 7 Edited by A.Oburota, (Benin: AecawaPublication, 2004), p. 95.

HEGEL’S PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT

In the philosophy of right, Hegel took a metaphysical approach on the issue of

democracy. He narrates how the objectivespirit has developed over the centuries in the

human society.The spirit for Hegel isactualised in the formation of a state. He divided the

stagesof the development of the absolutespirit into three: The abstract right, morality and

ethical life.In the Abstract right, the spirit remains in its immediacy as an abstract

universal. In the Moral stage; the spirit is no longer merely in itself or restricted to the

specific characteristics of legal personality, but becomes free for itself and produce a self-

consciousness of the will’s infinity. And lastly in the ethical life, the will is fully

actualised and objectifies through the creation of institutions like; the family, civil society,

and the state. The state becomes an agent through which the freedom of the individual

becomesobjectify in sphere. The state for Hegel is

A self-dependent organism, or constitution, the relation of states to otherstates in international law and universal idea as mind or spirit which givesitself actuality in the process of world-History.15

His idea of democracy rests on the above. This can be explained thus, the constitution

should recognise the crown, the legislature and executive. This means that Hegel supports

a constitutional monarch. There should be Sovereignty in relation to other states in

democracy. This means respect of each nation state as regards maintenance of the human

freedom and equality. And lastly in World-History, he narrates how these stages of the

15David A. Duquette, “Hegel Social and Political Thought”, http://www.iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/, (20/10/2011).

development of the absolute spirit have been empirical in the world. In the orientalworld

only one is free, in the Greeks and the Roman worlds, some are free and in the Germanic

world all are free.

IMMANUEL KANT ON DEMOCRACY

To understand what Kant has to say about democracy his book “Perpetual Peace”

becomes very important to reference. Perpetual peace refers to a state of affairs where

peace is permanently established over a certain area.16Kant’s idea of perpetual peace is

seen as the origin of contemporary liberal thought. This idea of attaining peace is reflected

in his two articles; the preliminary articles and the three definitive articles. In the

preliminary he narrates steps to be taken to attain immediate peace.

No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacticallyreserved matter for future war. No independent states, large or small shallcome under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchaseor donation.Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished.National debtsshall not be contracted with a view to external friction of states. No state shallby force interfere with the constitution or government of another state. Andlastly, No state shall during war permit such acts of hostility which wouldmade mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible.17

In the definitive articles, he explains the form a state should take, so as to serve as a

foundation on which peace should be built.

The civil constitution of every state should be republican, the basis ofinternational law should be a federation of free states, and each individual is

16“Immanuel Kant”, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace#The_Kantian_View_And_its_descendants, (23/11/ 2011).17Ibid.

entitled to be treated with hospitality when meeting the inhabitants of otherStates.18

Kant’s idea reflects the modern democracy. It shows the separation of power of the

executive from the legislature. The limitation of Kant’s idea to proper democracy is that

it denies universal suffrage. And lastly, Kant’s idea was in support of a kind of

government that allows people think for themselves.

ALEXANDER KOJEVE’S END OF HISTORY

Kojeve is best known for his theory of the end of history and for initiating

existential Marxism. Kojeve in his “Introduction to The Readings of Hegel” brought

Hegel into the picture again. He brought the idea that desire is the engine of history. It is

the desire of man to actualise itself; this actualisation has undergone different stages of

development to the present liberal democracy. Taking from Hegel and Heidegger he said

man by ontology is free therefore the form of government that will reflect this should be

embraced. The question that further burdens his idea of the end of history is what

economic system will triumph? He debunked Marxism-Leninism socialism, and upholds

capitalism. Now I shall explain how each of the above theories influenced Fukuyama.

From Thomas Hobbes and John Locke he developed his idea concerning the

nature of the first man. For the social contract theory upholds that fear drove the first man

to form a civil society. In his analysis; there was fear in the first man, but the fear was

overtaken by the desire for recognition, and led to formation of a lordship and bondage

18Ibid.

society before culminating in liberal democracy. Hegel was the one who first came up

with the idea of a universal history of man. It is a history driven by the thymos; resulting

in the lordship and bondage stage, and its telos in the homogenous state that is liberal

democracy. Liberal Democracy is the fullness of the thymos and it is universal. From

Immanuel Kant he developed the idea of a liberal democratic peace. Liberal States enjoy

peace, and for liberal democracy to be internationalised it must take this peace along

when relating with other countries. Alexander was influenced by Hegel. Kojeve’s end of

history is what Fukuyama brought to life again. The work is a renewal of Kojeve’s work

or rather still, Kojeve in the contemporary world. In short, it was Kojeve who woke

Fukuyama up to historical reality that culminates in liberal democracy. Kojeve took the

fullness of thymos away from Prussia in Germany, and gave it to the United States of

America. The United States of America (a perfect liberal democracy) is now the end of

history propagated by Fukuyama, after the end of the Cold War.

At the end point, what this chapter has done so far is to give a detailed discourse

on the nature of liberal democracy. The work was able to give different definitions of

democracy, but accepted that there is a point on which democracy rests. Democracy rests

on the people. We have two forms of democracy; direct and representative. It is on the

representative democracy that I started my discussion proper since my concern is on

liberal democracy. The work also defined liberal democracy bringing the idea of

Fukuyama. The work also took at the historical trajectory of liberal democracy and the

features. And lastly in this chapter, the work presented the theories that influenced

Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy. On the influences, the work took a panoramic

view on the philosophers’ work that laid the foundation for Fukuyama. It took account of

philosophers like: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Hegel, Immanuel Kant and Alexander

Kojeve. What then does Fukuyama have to say about liberal democracy?

CHAPTER TWO

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA’S IDEA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

2.1. FUKUYAMA’S POLITICS

What does Fukuyama have to say about liberal democracy? The question

presupposes Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy. This idea is captured in his book

“TheEndof History and The Last Man,” a book which was a development of an earlier

article “The End of Hstory”, 1989.Here, he summarised his idea of liberal democracy thus

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passingof a particular period of post-war history, but the end point of history as such:that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and theuniversalisation of western democracy as the final form of humangovernment.19

The end of history is not the end of worldly affairs as many conceive it; but the end of the

evolution of human thought, and the sphere of ideas in the long run. In order to make his

idea comprehensible he divided it into political philosophy and philosophy of history.

Affirming these divisionsTom Wolife commenting on “The End of History and The Last

Man”avers “it is a fascinating historical and philosophical setting for the twenty-first

century.”20Also in Martins Griffiths’s words, “the subtleties of Fukuyama’s argument, is

an ingeniue blend of political philosophy, historical analysis of tenetative

19“TheEndOfHistoryAndLastMan”,http://en.m.wikipeadia’org/wiki/The_End_Of_History_And_The_Last_Man,(28/12/2011).20Francis Fukuyama,The End of History and The Last Man, (London: Penguin Books, 1992), front cover.

futurology”21Fukuyama went further to adopt two philosophical schools of thoughts,

which are idealism and empiricism to his idea. Idealism is the school of thought that holds

onto the belief that every thing that exists is spirit. Empiricism has to do with physical

realities that create effect on the senses, it is opposed to rationalism. Fukuyama introduced

Hegel’s spirit as the source of the liberal democracy that emerges at the end of history.

That is he explained liberalism in the light of Hegel’s spirit, he brought Hegel’s idealism

into materialism in the liberal state. By empiricism, Fukuyama adopted this school of

thought by looking at the political realities that we see and have seen in history, and how

these realities have shaped politics in the world. But in this chapter my focus will be on

Fukuyama’s Politics.Before going into detail, it is pentinent to answer this question, who

is Francis Fukuyama?

THE LIFE AND WORKS OF FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

Francis Fukuyama was born on the 27th of October, 1952 in Hyde Park

Neighbourhood Chicago.His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese war in 1905

and started a shop on the west coast before being interned in the Second World War. His

father Yoshio Fukuyama, a second generation of Japanese-American, was trained as a

minister in the Congregational Church. He received a doctorate in Sociology from the

University of Chicago and taught Religious Studies. His mother, Toshiko Kawata

Fukuyama was born in Kyoto, Japan. She was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, the founder

21Martin Griffiths,Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations, (London: Routledge, 1999), p.68.

of the Economics Department of Kyoto University, and the first president of Osaka City

University. Francis grew up in Manhattan as an only child; had little contact with

Japanesse culture, and did not learn Japanese. Fukuyama as an adult became a Political

Scientist, Political Economist and Author. He is a Senior Fellow at the Center For

Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanfold. He is Oliver Normellini

Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies(FSI), He comes to

Stanford from Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of John

Hopkins University, where he was The Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International

Political Economy and Director of SAIS’ International Development Programme.

Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Classics from Cornell

University, where he studied Political Philosophy under Allan Bloom. He initially

pursued graduate studies in Comparative Literature at Yale University, going to Paris for

six months to study under Roland Barths and Jacques Deridda, became disillusioned and

switched to Political Science at Harvard University. There he studied with Samuel P.

Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his PhD in Political Science

from Harvard for his Thesis on “Soviet Threats To Intervene In TheMiddle East.” In 1977

he joined the Global Policy Think Tank RAND Corporation. Fukuyama has been

affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell, an

education enterprise that was home to other significant leaders and intellectual. Fukuyama

was the Omar L. and Mary HirstProfessor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy

at George Mason University from 1996 - 2000.

Fukuyama, has written widely on issues relating to Democratisation and

InternationalPoliticalEconomy. His book, The End of History and The Last Man

published in 1992, has appeared in about twenty foreign editions.His most recent book,

The Origin of Political Order was published in April 2011. Other books include:

AmericaAt The Crossroads, Democracy, Power And The Neo conservative Legacy,

Falling Behinde, and so forth.

Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren. They live in California, with three

Children Julia, David and John. Back to where I stopped earlier, what is Fukuyama’s

Politicsall about?

Fukuyama’s Politics has to do with a descriptive observation of the empirical

realities of the post Cold War world politics. In order to describe these realities Fukuyama

look at a lot of issues which include:the role of the United States of America as an agent

of history, political theory with regards to post Cold War international institutions,

theories on policy-making and micropolitical institution. But because of time and space, I

shall limit myself to the role of the United States of America as the agent and goal of

history.

2.2. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS THE AGENT OF HISTORY

After the Second World War, the world became divided into bipolar regions; the

United States and the Soviet Union. But with the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in the

autumn of 1989, and the failed coup attempt in August 1991 in the Soviet Union, the

world became unipolar with United States emerging as the last man. It was in this light

thatFukuyamaconceives an America that will bring democracy to the rest of the world and

it must do this in a prudent and multilateral manner.Affirming this he said “the United

States is likely to take on other nations building commitments in the future, simply

because the failed state’s problem is one that cannot be safety ignored”. Fukuyama labels

the United States as a transitional empire of democracy and human right that should

“teach other states how to govern themselves.”22Irving Kristol supporting Fukuyama

holds“The United States of American is the incarnation we have all been waiting

for.”23The United States is the burden of being, in Hegelianterms, a historical

nation.Some scholars are of the view thatthe people of the United States will take the rest

of the world with them in whatever direction they may choose to go. How then has the

United States carried out this role in history?

PRECOLD WAR UNITED STATES’ POLITICS

The state now known as the United States of America startedwith a group called

the “continental congress”. It composed of representatives of Britain’s colonies who first

convened in 1774 to protect British policies. When they convened again after the

American Revolution had begun, they voted for independence from Britain and adopted

the declaration of independence, becoming the first government of the 13 United States.

22Francis Fukuyama, Nation-Building, (New York: Basic Books, 2004), pp. 258-260.23Irving Kristol, “Responses to Fukuyama”, The National Interestvol 16, (Summer 1989), pp. 26-28.

The Declaration had far reaching and lasting influence on individual rights in western

civilisation. It alsoinspiredrebellion against Spanish rule in South America and against

Monarchyin France. Thomas Jefferson owing to his intelligent was told to draft the

declaration,based on Locke natural rights theories.

The New American States, propelled by the idea of “manifest destiny” tend

towards expanding over the whole continent of North America and afterwards to further

spread across the American borders. Putting this idea into action led to the American civil

war and lots of internal problems. After the civil war Americans got busy expanding

internally, with the frontier to conquer and virtually acquire unlimited resources, they had

little reasons to look elsewhere.

Until late 19th century America remained essentially indifferent to foreign politics

and world affairs. The interests it had outside its borders were mainly in the Pacific and

the Caribbean, where trade, transportation and communication issues demanded

attentions. To this effect American wanted to extend their influence oversees with two

primary goals: to pursue favourable trade agreement and alignments and to foster the

spread of christainity and democratic ideals. Also the industrial revolution was another

catalyst that propelled the U.S role in world politics. The revolution created challenges

that required a broad reassessment of economic policies and conduct. The production of

greater quantities of goods, the need for additional sources of raw materials and greater

markets, and in general capitalism made them to look outward. Still pursing its

commercial activities in the world it was then in 1917 that the German policy of

unrestricted submarine warfare in the First World War seriously affected the U.S

commercial shipping to it allies in Europe, so it was forced to join the First World War

after declaring its absolute neutrality from the war.

The League of Nations was formed at the end of the First World War, but not too

long it collapsed. The League collapsed because; the United States refused to joined them,

and in December 1939, the United States entered the Second World War alongside with

its allies and help defeat Nazi Germany. In the course of the war the U.S thought it will

win so it mapped out Grand Area plans that they are to dominate,maintain unquestioned

power, with military and economic supremary. They believed that the control of the

incomparable energy reserves of the Middle East would yield substantial control of the

world and correspondily, that a loss would threathen the project of global dominace.24

The Grand Area countries include;Western Hemisphere, the far East, and the

former British empire, with its Middle East energy resources, and Eurasia.After The

Second World Warthe United States together with other governments of the

world,committed themselves to establishing the United Nations.The dream of creating an

organisation that will respect human rights and avoid wars came to pass in1945 in San

Francisco with the drafting of United Nations. The United Nations is made up of 185

nations; its headquarters is in New York, the United Statesis a permanent member of the

24Noam Chomsky, “Is the world too big to fail?”,http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192514364490977.html, (12/2/2012).

Security Council,it therefore, conclusivelyhas a strong influence in the politics of the

United Nations.

POST COLD WAR UNITED STATES’ POLITICS

The principal objectives of the United States after the Cold War include: to

maintain a strong European defense capacity led by the United States; to encourage a

European intergration that remained opened to the rest of the world; and to continue

globalliberalisation of trade and investment on terms favourable to American’s

interest.25These objectives aresummarised as follows: security, politics, economics, trade

and investment.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisationwas an offshoot of the United Nations,

established by The United States out of fear that the Soviet Union might control more

partsinEurope.OnSecurity matters The United States achieved the following: theNATO-

Warsaw pact confrontation, the reunification of Germany, withdrawal of Soviet forces

from Europe, and peaceful dissolution of the SovietUnion.The nuclear weapons of the

Soviet Union were also gathered into Russia and there has been an underfunded but well-

conceived programme to cope with the problems of loose nukes and migration of Russian

Weapon of mass destruction experts to foreign policy. Outside Europe, there has been

some other important gains for the United States security policy. In this period Saddam

Hussein’s aggression against Kuwait and his violation of Non-proliferation treaty

25Robert O. Keohane et al,After the Cold War, (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 116.

werefrustrated. North Korea was blocked from moving to substantial nuclear weapons

capacity. There were partially successful United Nations actions in Cambodia, Haiti,

Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo and East Timor.TheNon-Proliferation treaty was extended

indefinitely. The chemical weapons convention was concluded and entered into force. A

comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was negotiated and signed.

On trade, politcs and economic matters, afterthe Cold WarEastern Europe became

a significant arena in which America’s policy would operate.It moves NATO Eastward to

Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia,and other former Communist countries of the

region. The United Statesincorporated Eastern Europe and former Soviet States into

NATO, to increase its political role. The European community assisted by The United

Statesdeveloped theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Included in the

membership of this bank is the Soviet Union, but its borrowing power was limited to the

capital it contributedandthe United States beingthelargest country made sure that the

presidency of the bank goes to Western Europe.Inorder to help the Soviet Union with aid

assistance to boostit’s economy; the United States blocked its membership of GATT and

IMF, and with the help of President Reagan they were granted admission into these

institutions, on the condition of economic change in the Union

In summary, what this chapter has been able to achieve so far is to analyse the

political stance of Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy. This stance rests on the role the

United States of America has been playing in history. What then is the Fukuyamean

system of history all about?

CHAPTER THREE

THE GLOBALISATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

3.1. THE FUKUYAMEAN SYSTEM OF HISTORY

The Fukuyamean system of history deals with the analysis of the mechanism

driving history towards liberal democracy, which is the mechanism of

desire.26Fukuyama’s account of liberal democracy is predicated on the assumption that

history, as the coherent and directional transformation of the human societies.27It is a

history of the world which is none other than the progress of the consciousness of

freedom. Fukuyama turned to history and asked is history directional, and is there reason

to think that there will be a universal evolution in the direction of liberal democracy?28 To

answer this question Fukuyama delved into the philosophical investigation of events that

have happened in the world and how they point and culminate in liberal democracy. He

also went forward to identify the mechanism that has been responsible for the movement

of the human society from its primitive stage to its present stage.This is the mechanism

that will also lead to the universalization of liberal democracy. Explaining this historical

process, he divided the mechanism or engine that will lead to the globalization of liberal

26Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and The Last Man, (London: Penguin Books, 1992), p. 71.27Timothy Burns(Ed), “Reflections on the End of history” Five Years Later after History: FrancisFukuyama and His Critics, (Lanham Md: Row man and Littlefield, 1997), p. 204.28Francis Fukuyama, Op.cit, p. 71.

democracy into two. They are; the logic of modern natural science29, and the struggle for

recognition.30 I shall start with the former, the logic of modernnatural science.

3.2. THE LOGIC OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE

Science has a distinguished quality of universality and since its discovery,it has

impacted all human societies. A look at the range of human social activities tells us that

the only one that is by common consensus, unequivocally cumulative and directional is

modern natural science. Natural science builds upon itself. The scientific understanding of

nature is neither cyclical nor random; mankind does not return periodically to the same

state of ignorance, nor are the results of modern natural science subjected to human

caprices, dictators, nor parliaments, that we will say that their demise will lead to the

demise of natural science. The scientific knowledge was not a feature of all human

societies, but when it was discovered in Europe it has to be taken to other parts of the

world. It was welcomed by all societies regardless of culture.

The question nowis how the development of modern natural science makes

historical process directional and universal. Fukuyama presented two ideas here: the first

way is through military competition,31 and the second economic development.32

29Ibid.,p. xv.30Ibid.,p. xvi.31Ibid., p.73.32Ibid., p.76.

MILITARY COMPETITION

The universality of science provides the ground for the global unification of

mankind. In the first instance; because of the prevalence of wars and conflicts in the

international system, modern natural science confers a decisive military advantage on

those societies that can developed, produce and deploy technology the most effectively.

As the relative advantage conferred by technology increases so also does rate of

technological changes accelerate.The introduction of defensive modernizationleads to the

formation ofa strong and centralized state; that fights enemyneighbours, promote national

unity and solve all internal conflicts.This explains why the Zulus’ spears were no match

for British rifles no matter how brave individual warriors were.Mastery of science was the

reason why Europe could conquer most of what is now the third world; science also

makesthese countries regain some of their sovereignty. He concluded that the

reoccurrence of war and military competition among nations is thus a great unifier; even

as war leads to destruction, it forces states to accept modern technological civilization and

the social structures that support it. Modern natural sciences in this way force itself on

man, whether he cares for it or not. If this is the case of military competition, how then

does modern natural science impact man on the economic line?

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Economic development involves the progressive conquest of nature for the

purpose of satisfying human desires. For Fukuyama, economic development is the same

as industrialization.33Industrialization is not simply the intensive application of

technology to the manufacturing process and the creation of new machines;it is also the

bringing to bear of human reason to the problem of social organization and the creation of

a rational division of labour.34 The improvement on communications and transportations,

the building of roads, the development of ships and ports, the invention of rail roads and

the like, make possible an expansion in the size of market. This in turn facilitates the

realization of economies of scale through rationalization of the organization of labour.

This in the long run leads to urbanization, universal education, social mobility, global

markets, consumer culture, bureaucracies and so forth.

Having explained how the progressive unfolding of modern natural science helps

man to solve security problems and dominations, and aids economic development through

industrialization. There is an unresolved issue left for Fukuyama to solve. Fukuyama has

not told us how the logic of modern natural science will lead in the economic sphere to

capitalism or to liberal democracy in the political arena. How can this happen?

33Ibid.,p.76.34Ibid.

THE LOGIC OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE VIS-À-VIS ECONOMIC

LIBERALISM (CAPITALISM)

What Fukuyama intends doing here, is to show us how modern natural science

leads gradually to capitalism. He started on this note, there are countries that have

undergone the first stages of industrialization, that is economic development and

defensive modernization, but they are not capitalist or democratic. Fukuyama made

reference to the Stalin Rule in the Soviet Union, which between 1928 and late 1930s had

accomplished an industrialized economy but did not permit its citizens neither economic

nor political freedom. This then made people to believe that; centralized planning under

police-style tyranny was in fact more effectivein attaining industrialization, and also that

the logic of natural science was geared towards a central planning economy.

Fukuyama disagrees with the above assertion by saying that it was the same

modern natural science that propelled the central planning system to limelight, also

brought it to a fall. He used the internationalization of division of labour and advanced

technology as the catalyst that led to the breakthrough of capitalism. Fukuyama explains,

industrialization that we know today is not a one short affair; whereby countries are

suddenly propelled into economic modernity, but rather a continuous evolving process

without a clear end points, where today’s modernity quickly becomes tomorrow’s

antiquity. Industrialization for early social theorist like Marx and Engels consisted of light

industries like textiles manufacturing in England and so forth. This quickly gave way to

development like the propagation of railroads, the creation of the iron steal and chemical

industries, ship building and other forms of heavy manufacturing and growth of unified

national markets, which constituted industrial modernity for Lenin, Stalin and the Soviet

followers. Britain, France, the United States, and Germany reached this stage by the First

World War.Japan and the rest of Western Europe by the Second World War, the Soviet

Union and Eastern Europe in the 1950’s.He further explained that what has replaced this

era of industrialization is the post-industrial age.

Fukuyama debunked the above stance and holds that the internationalization of

rational division of labour and advanced technology lead towards the evolution of

decentralized decision making. The market became virtually inevitability for all industrial

economy that hope to become post-industrial. While for centrally planned economies

could follow their capitalist counterpart into the age of coal, steel,and heavy

manufacturing, because they could not cope with the requirements of the information

age.Fukuyama introduces the tool responsible for this shift as“Freedom”. The failure of

central planning in the final analysis is related to the problem of technological innovation,

which can only thrive in an atmosphere of freedom.

Freedom operates with capitalism in the economic line; it allows people to think

and come out with different innovations in different areas of human endeavours,

communicate freely, and more importantly they are rewarded for their innovations. The

Soviet Union could pampers its nuclear physicists, it did not have much leftover for the

designers of television sets, which exploded with some regularity, or for those who might

aspire to market new products to new consumers, a completely non-existence in the

USSR and China.Centralized economics have not succeeded in making rational

investment, or in effectively incorporating new technologies into the production process.

This only occur when managers receives adequate information on the effects of their

decisions, in the forms of market-determined prices.The complexity of modern economies

proved to be simply beyond the capacities of centralized bureaucracies to manage no

matter how advanced their technical capacities.The need for central planners to maintain

control over prices and allocation of goods prohibits them from participating in the

international division of labour, and thereby prevented them from realizing the economies

of scale it makes possible.Central planning undermines an all important aspect of human

capital, the work ethics. Even a strong work ethics can be destroyed through social and

economic policies that deny people personal incentives to work, and re-creating it can be

extremely difficult.

The fall of the Soviet Union, and The post war Asian experience, as seen in the

four tigersof Asia, (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea) gave credence to

capitalism.35 They adopted the classical liberal trade theory opportunity. The theory

emphasizes that in an open system of world trade; countries should maximize the

advantage of all, even if one country sold coffee beans and another computer.And for the

third world country and Latin America he said the problem while capitalism has not

35Ibid.,p.102.

achieved a lot in these countries is based on two reasons: culture and theimproper

application of capitalist policy. And he said that until these are resolved, they cannot be

developed. With these he declared the victory of the VCR.36 Economic liberalism is the

only economic system that connects properly with the logic of modern natural science

from Fukuyama’s explanations. I shall now consider how Fukuyama connects the logic of

science to liberal democracy, in the political arena.

THE LOGIC OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE VIS-À-VIS LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY

Fukuyama investigated three theories, that different scholars have put forward in

order to explain how modern natural science produce liberal democracy.

The Functional Argument: This argument holds that only democracy is capable of

mediating the complex web of conflicting interests that are created by a modern economy.

The interest groups created in the industrializationprocesses include: a working class, new

managerial personnel, government bureaucrats, and waves of immigrants. Democracy is

more functional in such a setting, because it is more adaptable. It establishes universal and

open criteria for participation in the political system, allows new social groups and

interests groups to express themselves and join in the general political consensus.

Conflicts that developed among these emerging social groups have to be adjudicated

36Ibid.,p.98.

either in the legal system, or in the political system that best provide the means for

attaining this, because the market cannot do this alone.

The second argument, has to do with the tendency of dictatorships or one party

rule to degenerate over time and to degenerate more quickly when faced with the task of

running an advanced technologically society. Also, founders of dictatorship governments

enjoy more authority than their successors, and democracy emerges as a result of struggle

between elites of such society.

The Classical Modernisation Argument: This argument is also known as the

middle class society argument. It is the most powerful line of arguments that links

economic development with liberal democracy.37 Middle class citizens as a result of

universal education made possible by industrialization, demands political participation

and equality of rights. This predisposes people to oppose political system that do not

respect that equality or permits people to participate on an equal basis. The effect of

education makes people liberated from prejudices and traditional forms of authority.

Fukuyama disagrees with the above theories. For the functional argument, he

holds that this argument supports democracy only because it can solve conflicts that arise

from interest groups. He tend ask what about the non-economic conflicts that arises from

nationality, religion, tribal differences and so forth? This argument cannot solve non

economics conflicts. One the second argument, he said democracy gotten through this

37Ibid., p.115.

means becomes a truce between the warring factions, and it isvulnerable to a shift in the

balance of power between them that allow one group or elite to re-emerge triumphant.

From the classical modernisation theory, he disagrees that if this democracy is achieved

based on education it therefore means that democracy cannot work in society were the

most of the populace are illiterates. And also that democracy achieved through this

process is not liberal democracy but authoritarian democracy like that of Lenin.

It is based on the above, that Fukuyama’s conclusion on modern natural science as

a mechanism to achieve the globalisation of liberal democracy takes a negative

turn.Fukuyama tends to look elsewhere for the mechanism that will link them. What then

could this mechanism be?

3.3. THE STRUGGLE FOR RECOGNITION

The answer to the above question is the struggle for recognition. Fukuyama

quoting Kojeve on this holds the concept is as old as political philosophy and refers to a

phenomenon coterminous with political life itself. The struggle for recognition is evident

everywhere around us and underlines contemporary movements for liberal rights, whether

in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Southern Africa, Asia, and Latin American.38 The

mechanism that is responsible for this struggle for recognition is the cause of the present

liberal democracy and it is this same mechanism that will take liberal democracy to a

global level and not natural science. This mechanism in Fukuyama’s word is the thymos.

38Ibid.,p.145.

The Thymosis the desire for recognition that provides the missing link between liberal

economics and political liberalism.How does thethymos provide this link? Fukuyama

explained this by going back to history, to investigate the nature of the first man in the

primitive society.

THE FIRST MAN

Fukuyama investigated the nature of the first man from Kojeve’s interpretation of

Hegel’s philosophy of history. History started with the first man and here is the nature of

the first man. The first man shares with the animal certain basic natural desires such as:

the desire for food, for sleep, for shelter and above all for the preservation of his own life.

He is to this extent part of the natural or physical world. But Hegel’s first man is radically

different from the animals in that he desires not only real positive objects, but also objects

that are totally non-material.

The ultimate of these desires is,he desires of other men. He desires to be wanted

by others or to be recognized by other human beings. For Hegel, an individual cannot

become self-conscious, that is, become aware of himself as a separate being without being

recognized by other human beings. This supports the belief that man was from the start a

social being. His sense of worth and value is intimately connected with the identity other

people placed on him. It was from this firstman, in its primitive stagethat the thymos

already started working.

The thymos is a Greek word that is translated as spiritedness.39Many philosophers

have explained this concept but, Fukuyama used Plato’s idea of the thymos to explain the

desire for recognition. Thethymos is associated with courage that is the willingness to risk

one’s life. Socrates associated the thymos to a part of the human soul that induces

reasoning. The soul has both reasoning and desiring abilities.The reasoning part help

shapes the desires of the soul towards positivity. Plato’s thymos is therefore nothing other

than the psychological seat of Hegel’s desire for recognition; for the aristocratic master in

the bloody battle is driven by the desire that other people evaluate him at his own self-

worth. Indeed, he is driven into a bloody rage when that sense of self-worth, is denigrated.

The thymos and the desire for recognition differsomehow. The former refers to a part of

the soul that invests objects with value, whereas the latter is an activity of thymos that

demands that another person’s consciousness share the same valuation. The thymos has to

do with noble virtues like selflessness, idealism, morality, self-sacrifice, courage and

honourability.40 The desire for recognition takes two forms; megalothymia and isothymia.

The megalothymia is the desire to be recognized as superior to others.41It is the spirit that

encourages inequality in human relationships. The isothymia, this is the desire to be

recognized as equal of other people.42Theisothymia and megalothymia constitute the

manifestation of the desire for recognition around which historical transition to modernity

can be understood. Fukuyama sees theisothymia as the best part of the soul; because it

39Ibid.,p.163.40Ibid.,p.171.41Ibid.,p. 182.42Ibid.

describes what the thymos truly stands for, but for themegalothymia, it is a corrupted

thymos and cannot be accepted. Since the thymos represents equality and freedom it is the

social institutions and ideology that reflects this that should be embraced.And this

institution in Fukuyama’s stance is liberal democracy.

Back to where I stopped on the nature of the first man. The first man does notonly

want to be recognized by other men, but to be recognized as a man. The most

fundamental and uniquely human characteristic is man’s ability to risk his own life. Thus

the first man’s encounter with other man leads to a violent struggle in which contestants

seek to make the other recognize him by risking his own life. Man is a fundamentally

other-directed and social animal; but his sociability leads him not into apeaceful civil

society as posited by the social contract theorists, but into a violent struggle to the death

for pure prestige. This bloody battle can have any of these results: it can lead to the death

of both combatants, it can lead to the death of one of the contestants, and lastly it can

terminate in the relationship of lordship and bondage.

THE LORDSHIP AND BONDAGE SOCIETY

This is the society that emerges when themegolothymiatakes precedence. It is a

meeting that creates a society of superiors and inferiors. The superiors are the lords while

the inferiors are the slaves. In this new relationship, there is nosatisfactionbetween the

lords and slaves in the long run. The absence of satisfaction constituted big contradictions

in slave owing societies and generated the impulse towards further historical progress.

The master fights for his freedom and the slave is denied freedom, but both are humans

who have thymos and deserve equal recognition.

This is the result of the dilemma of the master; he is being recognized by a similar

being, which means this form of relation will not last, apart from the slaves, he also fights

with other with other masters to be recognized.

The master remains unproductive because, he has a slave working for him. This

means he can be killed, because he cannot be educated as time goes on. The slave, by

contrast, conceives of the idea of freedom by working for the master, and in the process

he realizes that as a human being, he is capable of free and creative labour.The slave is

more philosophic he must consider freedom in the abstract before he is able to enjoy it in

reality. He must invent for himself the principles of a free society before living one. The

slave’s consciousness is therefore higher than that of the master; because it is more self-

conscious, it is reflective of itself and its own condition.

In the Phenomenology, Hegel identifies several slave ideologies, he was

particularly interested in the Christianreligion (the absolute religion), because this is the

ideologythat acted as the penultimate to the realization of the slaves’ freedom. The

Christian understanding of freedom implies universal equality for humans. The Christian

contribution to historical progress was to make clear to the slave this vision of human

freedom and to define for him the sense all men could be understood to have dignity. The

Christian God recognizes all human beings as individual worth. But there is a problem, in

the long run the Christian religion only promises the slaves heavenly equality and

freedom. This thereby makes the slaves to still be in bondage. What they need isan

ideology that will free them from the earthly bondage, not heavenly freedom and equality.

This means the struggle continues towards the last stage of historical progress.

THE UNIVERSAL AND HOMOGENEOUS STATE

This is the stage that the equality and freedom the slaves have been crying for in

history become realised.The first event in history that proves this achievement was the

French Revolution. It istherevolution that the isothymia the true part of the thymos

becomes recognised and fulfilled. It is a stage where the equal recognition of the human

person becomes actualised, and the social institution that made this possible is liberal

democracy. The French Revolution was the event that made the Christian vision of a free

and equal society, implemented here on earth. This is where Fukuyama introduced

Nietzsche who holds that men have killed God and make themselves master of their

destinies. It is a recognition that the Christian God was created by man, and he has been

brought down to live in the parliamentary buildings, and the presidential palaces. With

this revolution the former slaves risked their lives, and they overcome the fear of death

that makes them slaves. The principles of liberty and freedom were carried to the rest of

Europe by Napoleon victorious armies. Following this was the spirit of 1776 the

American Revolution, which was not the victory of another group of masters, or the rise

of a new slavish consciousness but the achievement of self-mastery form of democratic

government. And many authoritarians regimes have given way to democracy in Portugal,

Greece, Spain, Turkey, Peru, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, Philippines, South Korea,

Taiwan,Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

Andwith the end of the Cold War in 1989 the idea of liberal democracy has become a

global reality.

Fukuyama further elaborates the nature of the homogeneous state. In this last

stage of history, the thymos links the first man to the last man, and it finds its fulfilment in

the universal and homogenous state.This is the answer to the quest began in the logic of

modern natural science. The struggle for recognition among men finds its final

actualization and full consciousness in the homogeneous state that is the attainment of

liberal democracy. And for Kojeve: we are at the end of history, this therefore stands or

falls on the strength of the assertion that the recognition provided by the contemporary

liberal democracy states, adequately satisfies the human desire for recognition. What man

could not get in the christian religion and communism was provided by liberal

democracy. Fukuyama together with Kojeve believed that modern liberal democracy

successfully synthesized the morality of the master and the morality of the slave,

overcoming the distinction between them as it preserves something of both existences.

The present day liberal state is a rationalone because it defeated other irrational

and slave ideologies such as:monarchy, fascism, nationalism, communism,

totalitarianism, and so forth. It is a state founded on the basis of open and publicized

principles, which occurred in the course of theconstitutionalconventionthat led to the birth

of the America republic. The liberal states also grants and protects the rights of the human

person. Any human child born on the territory of the United States or France or any

number of other liberal States, is by that very fact endowed with certain citizenship. No

one may harm the life of the child weather black or white without prosecution. In time the

child will have rights to property, which must be respected by both the state and fellow

citizens. The child also has rights to thymoticoptions.This means the child has the right to

conceive worth and value about any topic; which can be of religious belief, which has to

be exercised within complete freedom. And when the child reaches adulthood it can

participate in governments that makethe rights. It is in this liberal state that the speech of

Martin Luther King on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1964. He said “he a dream

that his four little children, will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by

the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”

THE PROBLEM OF THE LAST MAN

Fukuyama wanted a case whereby he will permanently solve the issue of whether

there is going to be another ideology outside liberal democracy. To bury this case, he

addresses certain criticisms from the left and right and thereby refines the balance

between capitalism and liberal democracy, which constitutes the problem of the last man.

From the leftists, they argued that internal contradiction of universal recognition in liberal

democracy; is that economic liberalism creates division of labour and inequality.

Capitalist economies necessarily provide different levels of thymotic satisfaction to

different groups of people, based on wealth and skills. Yet Fukuyama argues that

government’s intervention to give more dignity to the disadvantaged group would deprive

other groups of liberty, undermining the principle of liberty. On the other hand, the

rightists, following Nietzsche, believe that the modern democracy is not the self-mastery

of the previous slaves, but rathertheir mastery over their previous masters. They argued

that human beings are inherently unequal and must desire the satisfaction of

megalothymia, rather than that of isothymia. It is therefore possible that the new slaves,

whose thymos is not satisfied, might reverse History; humans might return to their

aristocratic engagement in prestige battles, but now with destructive weapons.

In regarding the leftist critique, Fukuyama contends that the remaining social

inequalities in democratic societies represent a tension to balance, rather than a

contradiction to resolve, between the twin principles of liberty and equality. This tension

concerns not the principles of liberal society, but the precise point at which the proper

trade-off balance between liberty and equality should come.43 Attempts to balance liberty

and equality can be made without undermining the principle themselves, leading to

different forms of liberal democracy, such as the individualism of Reagan’s America, the

Christian Democracy of Continental Europe, or Social Democracy of Scandinavia.44

43Ibid.,p. 293.44Ibid.,pp. 293-4.

Fukuyama takes the leftist critique more seriously, to the extent that he describes

the tension between megalothymia and isothymia within liberal democracy as the

contradiction that liberal democracy has not yet solved.45 This is in Nietzschean terms, the

problematic of the last man. Fukuyama believes that themegalothymia and isothymia can

be made compatible within liberal democracy, depending on the quality and number of

outlets for megalothymia to bleed off excess energy that would otherwise tear the

community apart.46 One of the most effective outlets for megalothymia is capitalist

entrepreneurship, in which people take risk for wealth and reputation, but not in military

manner and under the auspice of democratic governance. Moreover, community such as:

community churches, sports clubs and advocacy groups, provides individual with tailored

personalized sense of recognition and thus complements the relative impersonal

recognition by the state. Community, Fukuyama holds is democracy best guarantee that

its citizens do not turn into last men.47And finally competition for scientific achievements,

politics, foreign policy, sports and formal arts all enable the individual to channel their

megalothymic urges into productive activities.

Conclusively, this chapter has exhausted Fukuyama’s system of history and how

this history leads to the globalization of liberal democracy. The work was able to explain

the two engines propelling history toward the direction of the globalization of liberal

democracy which are; the logic of modern natural science and the struggle for

45Ibid.,p. 314.46Ibid.,pp. 314- 315.47Ibid.,p. 323.

recognition. Science could not explain adequately, how it could lead to the globalisation

of liberal democracy. It was in the struggle for recognition propelled by the thymos that

the answer was given. The thymos links economic liberalism to political liberalism. And

lastly by addressing his critics from the left and right, Fukuyama declaredliberal

democracy as the end of history and the last man.

CHAPTER FOUR

ISSUES AND CRITCISMS ARISING FROM FUKUYAMA’S IDEA OF LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY

The issues and criticisms I raised here are the arguments for and against

Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy.

4.1. WOLRD WIDE LIBERAL REVOLUTIONS

Freedom and equality are natural concepts, something that all human beings

simply by being human naturally want. These concepts need not be forced on the human

person because it is the goal of every human to strive to actualize them. And with this we

can say that liberal democracy is an objective idea and its globalization is feasible. The

extraordinary developments in Eastern Europe herald only the latest and most dramatic

phases of the commitment of peoples all over the world to liberal democracy; and from

1989 to the present we have witnessed a great move of countries in the world from

authoritarian government to democratic government, thereby making Fukuyama’s

conclusion valid and sound.

Also the last century has seen the promotion of democratic ideals of liberty and

equality. During the long nightmares of the Cold War, leaders of the West had divided the

world into two great camps, the free and the unfree world. No one would deny that today

freedom and equality in the world stand unchallenged. They have become catch words of

every politician. They have also become the secular gospel of economic system, and

today we are living through another explosive diffusion of the ideal of liberal democracy.

If any survey is to be taken in the world today we will see that many people will go for

that government that givevoice to the voiceless.No wonder it is said that “no matter how

worst a democratic regime may be it is better than military or authoritative regimes”.

Since the Second World War scores of countries all over the third world and Far East

have continued to embrace liberal democracy. To prove this the survey by Freedom

House in 2009 of the state of freedom shows that in the world, 89 countries are classified

as free, 58 countries are partly free and 47 countries are not free.48Also we have witnessed

in this century the liberal revolutions in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and Syria also the

transition of government in Iraq and Afghanistan to democracy which are indications of a

world tending towards liberal democracy. And with only five countries of China, Laos,

North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam practicing Communism we can say liberal democracy is

the last man.

4.2. POLITICAL STABILITY

Citizens in liberal democracy are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest

or at the hands of their governments. This is because liberal democracy ensures the

protection of the fundamental human rights of its citizens and economic development.

Fundamental human rights in Lord Bryce classical work on democracy limits it to three;

48“The End of History and the Last Man”, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/theendofhistoryandlastman, (25/8/2011).

civil rights, which means the exemption from control of the citizens in respect of his

person and property. Religious rights are the exemption from control in the expression of

religious opinions and the practice of worship. Political rights is the exemption from

control in matters which do not plainly affect the welfare of the whole community as to

render control necessary, including fundamental rights of press freedom.49 A country

practicing liberal democracy grants its people the rights to choose their own government

through free and fair, periodic, secret ballot, and multi-party election based on universal

and equal adult suffrage, no wonder Huntington said that “liberty is the peculiar virtue of

democracy.”History also has it that there is less violence in America, Britain, France and

so forth because citizens’ rights in these countries are protected compared to countries

like: Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and so forth that practiced

dictatorship, where civilians’ death ranges from genocide, homicide, holocaust to mass

murder due to internal violence as a result of unstable government.

Liberal Democracy performs better in economics than authoritarian government.

This is because they are likely to have market economies which inherently tend towards

economic growth and development over a long period of time. Countries of the G-7 are

the world’s leading economy because they tend towards market economy. These countries

are: the United States, Japan, the Four Tigers of Asia which to an extent affirms what

Fukuyama says that “economic liberalism goes great economic performances”.

49Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and The Last Man, (London: Penguin Books, 1992), pp. 42-43.

The survey by Freedom House on economic freedom between 1995 and 1996

shows that out of 80countries that accounted for 90% of the world’s population and 99%

of the world’s wealth on the basis of criteria such as: right to own property, operate

business and belong to trade union, it found out that countries rated free generated 81% of

the world’s output even though they had only 17% of the world’s population.50Also

countries with liberal government are likely to adopt and create foundation for long term

economic growth and development. Individuals will only make long term investment

when they are confident that their investment will not be expropriated, which is made

possible by assurance that private properties will be protected and contract will not be

breached. The existence of law, independent judiciary, respect for rule of law and

individual rights, security of property and contract boost economic performances in a

country and this is readily made available in liberal democracy. This attitude apart from

being operational within a state it is taken to the internationalscene. This is what the U.S

is trying to do in the world today to ensure there is peace and maintenance of world order.

When countries of the world practice liberal democracy; there will be fewer conflicts in

the world, because democracies do not go to war according to the democratic peace

theory.

50Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “ Why The United States should spread Democracy”,http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/Publication/2830/why_ the_ United _States_should_spread_democracy.html, (28/2/2012).

4.3. THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS

To tackle Fukuyama’s idea, Huntington took an alternative stand andholds that the

end of the Cold War was to resurface another conflict in the world, an inter-civilizational

conflict. Huntington presented eight major cultures and civilizations that will clash with

the western civilization

The eight major cultures are: Sinc, Japanese, Hindu, Islam, Orthodox, Latin

America, West and Africa.51From these cultures he sees Islam and the Sinc cultures

playing major role in the clash with the West.Sinc is the common culture of China and the

Chinese communities in Southeast Asia and elsewhere outside of China as well as related

to the cultures of Vietnam and Korea.52 The twenty-first century has witnessed great

challenges from Islam and Asian cultures. Asia challenges is rooted in economic growth

and development, that has been very evident in the eastern part while the Islamic

resurgence is felt more in their number as the number of Muslims increases, their

members tend towards Islam as a source of identity. They have slogans which include

“Islam is the solution”,53“the West is the enemy and infidel, and they must fight

them”.54The clash Huntington foresaw will come basically from issues that divide the

West from other civilizations, and these issues are in the areas where the West wants to

51Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, (London: Simon andSchuster Inc., 1997), pp. 44-46.52Ibid.53Samuel P. Huntington, Op.cit, p. 109.54Noam Chomsky, “Is the World too Big to fail?”,http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192514364490977. html, (12/12/2011).

continuously dominate. The West wants to maintain its superiority through policies of

non-proliferation, and counter-proliferation with respect to nuclear biological weapon and

the means of delivering them. Also the West’s zeal to pursue western political values and

institutions; by pressing other societies to respect human rights as conceived in the West,

and to adopt democracy on western lines, and the capitalist economic system. And lastly

to protect the cultural, social, and ethnic integrity of western societies by restricting the

number of non-westerners admitted as immigrants or refugees.55

These clashes are happening in our very before as I write this essay. On the 9th of

September 2001 Al-Qaida an Islamic terrorist group led by Osama Bin Laden crashed two

air planes inside the Pentagon building in the United State of America. The attack really

brought relieve to the Muslims world because they were all very happy, even here in the

Northern Part of Nigeria where the deadly group of Islamic terrorist Boko Haram now

explode their bombs almost on a daily basis. With this, Islam told the West that they are

set for them, and in return the United States with the support of its allies lunched attack

back on Iraq and Afghanistan to fish out the terrorists. Osama Bin Laden was later killed

by the United States in the year 2011. In 2006 the Cartooning of Prophet Mohammed by a

Danish Magazine depicting him as a man of destruction led to another clash between the

West and Islam which brought Muslims all over the world to fight the West. The case

ofBoko Haram in the Northern part of Nigeria is also traceable to this clash. The present

fight by the U.S to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment, even though they have genuine

55Samuel P. Huntington, Op.cit, pp. 183-206.

reasons for embarking on such project is a further proof of the clash. The North Korea’s

rockets lunch in disobedience to the U.S orders, and the North Korea Nuclear weapon

program, the Arab spring in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, neo conservatism in

the U.S., the rise of Islamic fundamentalism andso forth. The clash of civilizations will

continue in as much as there exist different civilizations and cultures in the world and the

future is yet to see more clashes from the cultures of the Orthodox, Latin American,

Africa, Japanese, and Hindu on the International scenes and which will continue to prove

Fukuyama’s thesis wrong.

4.4. THE RETURN OF AUTHORITARIAN GREAT POWERS.

Arising from Huntington’s clash of civilizations is “the return of authoritarian

great powers”.56With this we can say that the victory of theWest in the Cold War was

exhaustion and not the triumph of the West. This is because the West reached its climax

when it won the cold war and now it is falling like a line on a graph; that starts from point

zero, gradually gets to its apex and starts falling back to zero. The perceived growth in

economic, political and military power of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are

threatening to the globalization of Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy. These countries

are gradually becoming models for countries round the world, who want to become

economic, political and military efficient.

56“The End of History and the Last Man”, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/theendofhistoryandlastman, (25/8/2011).

The rise of China, North Korea and the resurgence of Russia has made the

objective generalization and directionality of history in favor of liberal democracy

questionable. But from these countries the threat of China is more feasible than the rest,

which means I will focus on China. China practices a single-party state government, by

virtue of which it is a communist country. China is the second largest world economy; it

has been able to reach this position because the areas where the West were boastful of, it

is gradually taking over those areas. These areas as Huntington presented them are:

ownership and operation of the international banking system, control of all hard

currencies, the world’s principal customer, provision of majority of the world’s finished

goods, domination of international capital markets, exert considerable moral leadership

within many societies, capability of massive military intervention, control of sea lanes,

conducting of most advanced technical research and development, control of leading edge

technical education, domination of access to space, domination of the aerospace industry,

domination of international communication and domination of high-tech weapons

industry.57China is seriously competing with the United States of America in these areas

and it has been said that in years to come it may take over the position of America.

What this means, is that its system of government will eventually become the

order of the day.But what could be behind the success of China’s position in the

world?This is because China operates apolitical and economic system knows as

57Samuel P. Huntington, Op.cit, pp. 81-82.

Authoritarian-Capitalism.58 It sees its success as a product of their own civilization and

also China sees its current form of government; or any political system merely as a means

to achieving larger national ends, this is where the major strength of this system lies. This

is why itmakes larger complex decisions quickly, and makes them relatively well, and

lastly it has development of the country as its primary aim.

4.5.THE THEORIES OF HISTORY

In philosophy of history there is neverthe method onhow historical events can be

interpreted, but Fukuyama made that error. The error he made was to hold the position of

the philosopher Hegel who holds that history is directional and universal and it culminates

in the realization of the spirit and reason in liberal democracy. History is not only

interpreted directional as Fukuyama has pointed out in his thesis; history is also cyclical,

biblical and economical.59

Cyclical interpretation of history was common among the Greek philosophers who

hold that history is a realm of endless recurrence leading back to a starting point and

moves in cycle like season. This is the reason why Aristotle said that there is no best

government that different governments come and go. Hindus, Pythagoreans, Nietzsche all

hold this view. Biblical interpretation is also known as providential view60, it is the view

58Francis Fukuyama, “US Democracy Has Little to Teach China”, http//;www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbs6af6e8-2272-11e0-b6a200144feab49a.html#ixzz2MUORqHjY, (17/1/2011).59Harold H. Titus et al, Living Issues in Philosophy, 6th Edition, (New York: Litton Educational Publishing,Inc.1974), pp 194-198.60Ibid.

held by Christians, medieval theologians and Saint Augustine.This view is of the belief

that history is of a divine purpose, that God is the one who determines the affairs of man

and the type of Government that should emerge at the end of history. This assumption is

further supported by this view; “Israel does not choose God, God chooses Israel”.

Economic interpretation of history rests on Karl Marx dialectical materialism61, which

holds that the system of government that emerges at the end of history is pure

communism. It is a system that rests on the view that historical progress has been based

on class struggle in terms of production, distribution and exchange. He listed the stages

that societal development has passed into five namely: primitive communism, slave,

military feudal group, capitalist or bourgeois and the last the classless society that is pure

communism where all conflicts will end.

From the lessons of history we have seen that history is cyclical. Humans are

rational, and they tend to behave in rational as well as behave irrational, like historical

models when confronted with their uncertain future. For the cyclist humansare rational

and also irrational to say that all human in mass as Fukuyama says willbehave in rational

ways is not correct, people like Hitler,Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi will always exist.

This also explains why the megalothymicurgewill not be channeled into sports activities,

foreign policy, formal arts, science and productive activities at the end of history but

continuous conflicts in human society which negates Fukuyama’s stance. This also tells

us more why the equality preached by Fukuyama cannot be attained, humans are human

61Ibid.

themegalothymiain the soul cannot be suppressed it will always come to the fore and

inequality remains. If empires like Rome, Greece, Athens, and Sparta were able to reign

and go, it therefore means that liberal democracy will come and go and give way to other

kinds of government. Fukuyama’s explanation of the homogenous liberal state is that;it is

human designed,it means the death of God, and that man brought God down to earth

tobecome master of their destinies. This viewtherefore contradicts the biblical view that

Israel did not choose God but God chose Israel, which becomes untrue and unacceptable.

For Christians, the government that emerges at the end of history is theocracy. It is the

kingdom of God, which is of righteousness, peace, equality, justice and fairness. The

government awaited is that when God will destroy evil and bring peace to the earth on the

last day, until the judgment day comes there is no end of history.

On the economic line, Karl Marx holds strongly against liberal democracy because

it operates with capitalism and capitalism only increases inequality. Karl Marx believes

that if equality calls for by Fukuyama must be attained in the homogenous state, it is not

liberal capitalist democracy that will give that to mankind but pure communism. If we are

to accept Fukuyama’s view on the economic line, it means the dictatorship of the

bourgeois, majoritarianism, and the master and slave society will resurface again. To

avoid this, pure communism should be anticipated as the government of the end of

history. Karl Marx also opined that this transition to pure communism willbe a gradual

step and not forced as we see the United States of America do today in the world.

Findings have made us know that the recent democratic revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and

Libya that was supported by U.S that it is only the name of the government that has

change but the regime remains the same.62

4.6.GLOBAL CIVIC REPUBLICANISM

For centuries, decades, and millennia liberal capitalist democracy has beentested

and the results include: economic mismanagement, especially as we in this era where the

recentfinancial crisis has taken over the global economic. The global economic meltdown

is telling on businesses in Europe and America because of the heavy reliance on liberal

capitalist democracy. The unequal distribution of wealth that makes the gap between the

poor and rich wider. The high rate of unemployment, increase in the number of

war,proliferation of weapons, terrorism, poverty, famine, corruption, exploitations of

resources, hatred for government, riots, the occupy wall street’s movements and other

occupy movement, degradation of the environment, and so forth. Events have shown that

liberal capitalist democracy has become inefficient in handling the problems the post

industrialist era set before us.

If it has become like this, there is need for philosophers to think of a possible

system that will help ameliorate these problems. Philosophers today call for the

globalization civic republicanism.The idea is not new, if only Fukuyama was true to

himself this is the government that Kant already prophesied, but because of his

62Noam Chomsky, Is the World too Big to fail?”, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192514364490977. html, (12/12/2011).

commitment to the United States as at the time the Cold war ended, he thereby changed it

to suit America’s liberal democracy. Civic global republicanism is what Kant meant when

he talked about the democratic peace theory.For Kant, for States to enjoy perpetual peace

there is need for a republican government.

Global civicrepublicanism is an attempt to balance the construction of liberty in

particular states around the world with the capacity and aspiration to address global

problems and realize civic states.63It is a way to bring morality into the market and

government. This system is characterized by five moral and political principles. Liberty

entails non domination, by placing restrictions and demands on the state to ensure that

liberty, understood as a personal sense of security is constructed through public oversight

and control so that citizens are protected from forms of vulnerability domination by the

state or powerful interest within society. It develops a civic state designed to enable the

public good. These enable governments mediate between the different visions and interest

in society because the state is structured to prioritize the public interest of a common

liberty and not private interest. It provides a rationale for the delimited regulation of

capitalism, in order to promote non-domination which is aimed at promoting, protecting

from various forms of subjection and vulnerability that stems from unregulated forms of

capitalism. The confederation tendencies of republicanism promote complex forms of

interstate negotiation and institutionalization. The desire to avoid anarchy and hierarchy

necessitates the delegation of state sovereignty and forms of interstate cooperation that

63Steven Slaughter, Public Power in a Global Age, PhD Thesis, (Monash University: 2002), p. 276.

globally promotes non-domination. And lastly it asserts the crucial and constructive need

for civic states to jointly regulate global capitalism.

The only way that civil liberty is possible in a context of increasing global

integration is for states to jointly rule activities that may prevent them from pursuing the

politics of non-domination and civic liberty. Looking at these principles one will discover

that the world really needs this.

4.7. THE PROBLEMS IN AFRICA

Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy makes the West especially the United

States to see itself as the agent and goal of history. This goes a long way to create the

notion of superiority over all in their minds, thereby creating problems in the world in an

attempt to make these values universalized. Although Fukuyama emphasizes that if

America must carry on this role of spreading democracy it must be carried out in a multi-

lateral manner not unilateral.What we see today is a unilateral America who makes its

own interest the interest of the world this thereby creates lots of problems in the world

especially in developing continent like Africa.

It is not news that the problem in Africa today is colonialism, and colonialism is

the product of idea like the one Fukuyama is presenting.I cannot forget what Hegel,

Fukuyama’s rolemodel said about Africa that the absolute spirit by-passed Africa thereby

leaving Africa in infantile darkness whichmeans Africans are irrational people. Fukuyama

also made a similar allusion in his work he classified Africa as a third world country and

for him things will never be good until we practice western liberal capitalist

democracy.How can we attain liberal democracy when recent discoveries have shown that

the United States and its allies support dictatorships, and block democracy and

development? Democracy is only supported when it contributes to the economic, social

growth and development of the western nations. Even the United Nations does not help

matter because it is being run by the big players. The recent revolutions in Libya, Tunisia

and Egypt tell us more. What then is the African fate?

In Freund word’s colonialism brought two major developmental crises to Africa

namely; the problematic relationship between the state and the mass of people, and the

deteriorating condition of the economy in the large majority of African

countries.64Colonialism in Africa also debunked Fukuyama’s view about the homogenous

state. Fukuyama holds that“the emergence of the homogenous state at the end of history

was not the victory of another group of masters, not the rise of a new slavish

consciousness but the achievement of self-mastery form of democratic government”.65

Colonialism was all about making Africans slaves to serve the industrial needs of the

West which Fukuyama claimed have reached the stage of the homogenous state, and if

they have regarded Africans as equal as they are they would not have made them slaves.

And if youhave lived in the U.S, England, France and the so called liberal nations one will

64Olatunji A. Oyeshile, Reconciling the Self with the Other, (Ibadan: Hope Publications, 2005), p. 21.65Francis Fukuyama, Op.cit, pp 200-201.

testify to high rate of racial discrimination against Blacks in these countries. It becomes

clear that Fukuyama is just glorifying liberal democracy because that is what put food on

the table for him as a senior fellow at the Center for Development Democracy and The

Rule of Law at Stanford university. And also freedom and equality are principles for

relationship among the Whites and not among the Whites and Blacks.

And as I write today the situation has not changed, Africa is still under the control

of the West we cannot do anything without them.They can stop our breathing, because

bulk of our goods comes from them. Our natural resources is often been mostly

monopolized by European and American companies largely, taking money out of

Africa.When they want to lend African countries money; the interest they put is often too

high that they have to pay for a long time.No wonder it is said that the economy of the

whole of the continent of Africa combined together is not up to the economy of Germany.

Africa is like a dumping ground not just for used goods by the West but also ideologies.

They test run their ideologies here in Africa beforetaking it abroad. They determine how

we are to run our government because it must be in favor of them, because our

governmental ideologies come from there. Where then is the African identity if we must

practice western liberal capitalist democracy for our continent to be prosperous?

CONCLUSION

At this juncture it is pertinent to say that I have been able to achieve the aim I set

out at the beginning of this write up. The aim I set out is to do a critical study of Francis

Fukuyama’s idea of liberal democracy. I was able to do this by dividing this work into

four different chapters.

The first chapter was purely clarification of concept where I gave a detailed

explanation of the concept liberal democracy also I was able to introduce some of the

philosophers that influenced Fukuyama’s thought.

In the second and third chapters the very ideas of Fukuyama’s liberal Democracy

was put forward, which rest on Fukuyama’s two lines of philosophy namely; political

philosophy and philosophy of History. In his political philosophy hepresented the

empirical realities of politics in the world, by looking at the role the United States is

playing in world’s politics.

In the third chapter I brought out those arguments Fukuyama presented to support

his idea on how liberal democracy will be universalized.The logic of natural science

which brings alongdefensive modernization and industrialization and the struggle for

recognitions which is enabled by thethymos give the answer. Although at the end

Fukuyama was more interested in the power of the thymos to bring about the universalism

of liberal democracy instead of science.

In chapterfour I focused on the purpose of this write up which is to critique the

idea I presented in chapter two and three.Fukuyama was ableto prove himself as a

philosopher, by bringing philosophy back to the consciousness of everybody. Through his

work which is more philosophical than scientific Fukuyama made his mark. The answer

we sought for was not found in science but in philosophy; a way of telling philosophers

like the logical positivists and David Hume, that philosophy is the answer. It is in this

work that he was able to make us know that philosophy has triumph over science in

explaining the idea of liberal democracy. He didnot only glorify philosophy but

philosophical idealism which in the long run belongs to metaphysics. It was in the thymos

that the present world order can be best explained. With Fukuyama’s knowledge of

Philosophy he was able to explain that the best government is accepted because it satisfies

the thymos reflected in freedom, equality, respect of fundamental human right, and

economic development and this is attained not through science.

On a different note, by sacrificing his philosophical knowledge on the ground of

subjectivism, I will say that Fukuyama is biased in his presentation. Facts and figures

have shown that we have no more real democracy in the world today. Democracy in

politics has in no way led to democracy in its economic life as Fukuyama posited. Today

in the world we still have autocracy in industry as firmly seated on the throne as

theocratic kings ruling in the name of a god, and aristocratic military ruling. Also

Fukuyama can be seen as a philosopher who is inconsistent in his philosophical

enterprise. It is clear from his presentation that he is not in support of communism or

theocracy. But when he was addressing the problem of the last man as presented by

Nietzsche he holds that community is the best guarantee that citizens do not turn into last

men. Is he not in a way going back to the idea of communism he rejected? And also by

holding that one of the outlets of the community is the community church, is that not

bringing theocracy back?

What Fukuyama succeeded in presenting is Americanism, Europeanism and not

liberal democracy. Furthermore, by making the assumption that liberal democracy is the

last ideology mankind can think of is a hasty generalization. He is simply telling us that

we humans will not be able to think anymore which is against our nature as rational

beings. And finally; with the return of authoritarian great powers, the ongoing clash of

civilizations, the different interpretations of history, theglobalcallto regulate capitalism,

and the multifaceted problems being caused by the west in Africa, I strongly hold that

liberal democracy will not be the government of the end of history and the last man.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appadorai, A.The Substance of Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942.

Burns, T.(Ed). “Reflections on the End of history” Five Years Later after History:

FrancisFukuyama and His Critics, Lanham: Row man and Littlefield, 1997.

Chomsky, N. “Is the World too big to fail?”,http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/Opinion/,

(12/12/2011).

Duquette, D. A. “Hegel Social and Political Thought”, http://www.iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/

(20/10/2011).

Fukuyama,F.America at the Crossroads,New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.

__________Falling Behind, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

__________“Reflections on the End of History, Five Years On,” in World History:

Ideologies,Structures,and Identities, Malden:Blackwell Publishers, 1998.

__________The Origins of Political Orders,NewYork: Farran, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

__________Nations-Building, Baltimore: John Hopkins UniversityPress, 2006.

__________New Ideas on Development since the Financial Crisis, Baltimore: John

Hopkins University Press,2011.

__________Poverty, Inequality, and Democracy, Baltimore: John Hopkins University

Press, 2012.

__________State-Building, New York: Cornell University Press, 2004.

__________The End of Order, London: The Social Market Foundation, 1997.

__________The Soviet Union and the Third World, New York: Cornell University Press,

1987.

__________The End of History and The Last Man, London: Penguin Books, 1992.

__________“US Democracy Has Little to Teach China”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb

s6af6e8-2272-11e0-b6a200144feab49a.html#ixzz2MUORqHjY.html,

(17/1/2011).

Graham, K. The Battle of Democracy, London: Wheat Sheaf Books Limited, 1986.

Greenberg, S. E.The American Political System, 3rd Edition, Canada: Little Brown

and Company,1983.

Griffiths, M.Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations, London: Routledge, 1999.

Huntington, S.P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London:

Simonand Schuster Inc, 1997.

http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace#The_Kantian_View_and_its_descendants,

(23/11/2011).

http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/representativedemocracy, (25/11/ 2011).

http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/theendofhistoryandlastman, (25/8/2011).

http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/democracy, (25/11/2011).

Keohane, R. O.,Nye, S. J.and Hoffman, S. (Ed). After the Cold War,Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1993.

Kristol, I. “Responses to Fukuyama”, The National Interest Vol 16, summer 1989.

Lynn-Jones,S.“Why The United States should spread Democracy”, http://belfercenter.ksg

.harvard.edu/Publication/2830/why_the_United_States_should_spread_democracy

28/2/09/201192514364490977.html, (28/2/2012).

Oraegbunam, K.E. “John Locke’s Political Liberalism: It’s Relevance to Nigeria” in

WajopsWestVol 7, Edited by A.Oburota, Benin: Aecawa Publication,2004, p. 95.

Oyeshile,A. O.Reconciling the Self with the Other, Ibadan: Hope Publications, 2005.

Ramsay, M.What’s Wrong with Liberalism?,London: Continuum, 1997.

Riker, H. W.Academic American Encyclopaedia,U.S.A: Grolier Inc,1998.

Saliu,D. L. (Ed).International Encyclopaedia of the SocialSciencesVol 9 and 8, New

York: Macmillan Company and The free Press, 1968.

Slaughter, S.Public Power in a Global Age, PhD thesis, Monash University: 2002.

Titus H.H.and Smith S.M. Living Issues in Philosophy, 6th Edition, New York: Litton

EducationalPublishing Inc,1974.

Washington, M. J. (Ed). A testament of Hope, New York: Harper Collins, 1986.