Liberal democracy as number one

Since he first introduced the subject in his 1989 essay, "The End Of History", Francis Fukuyama has unwaveringly claimed that liberal democracy is today and in the future the only alternative form of government for the world. He came to this conclusion after studying the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism, up until then the only competition and alternative to liberal democracy. He said this climax represented the end point of humankind's ideological evolution, an evolution to determine how humankind should ultimately govern itself. Fukuyama felt this extraordinary event required an equally extraordinary explanation, hence his end of history analogy. In a sense it was the end of a history. Not only had liberal democracy triumphed over Communism but it had triumphed over all other forms of government known to humankind. He viewed this outcome as historically determined, having come as a result of a human realization and through the empirical process of elimination.

Why didn’t Fukuyama call this final form of government just plain Democracy instead of using the dual term liberal democracy to describe it? After all, that is what it was known as when it was competing and dueling with Communism for 70 years. I thought Democracy was democracy, no matter its composition. By using the split terminology to describe this end point in human governance, Fukuyama introduced some things that need better explaining.

Fukuyama said that “there are two separate motors driving the historical process”. The first motor is economic and the second is what Hegel called humankind’s struggle for freedom and recognition. They are first principles, hence their saliency. Instead of calling the economic motor capitalism, after the most successful and predominant economic system in the world, he called it liberal. He used liberal in its classic sense. Classic liberalism is the origins of capitalism. As he explained, he used liberal instead of capitalism because capitalism had acquired a pejorative connotation. Nevertheless, they both mean free market principles. Democracy is the name of the second motor because democracy is the only means of addressing and satisfying the basic human id, the struggle for freedom and recognition. He linked these two motors because he realized that neither capitalism nor democracy could on their own satisfy the human condition or fulfill the needs and aspirations of the modern world, whether it be in economics or in the struggle, but together they can.

I had wondered how capitalism and democracy fitted together. Some think that democracy and capitalism are opposing, contradictory systems. However, after some thought I realized that their closeness in western governance has meant and is due to the fact that neither institution can exist without the other in the long run. Their linking together is what has made western governance successful and superior to Communism. Fukuyama understood this. I think he also understood the dualistic nature of the world and its essentialness, hence his understanding the need of two separate motors for a sustaining, meaningful governance. He sensed that the modern world’s needs and aspirations can only be met with two such institutions meshing together. I was thinking the same when I thought that democracy and capitalism could not exist without each other. I also felt Communism collapsed because it lacked such a dualistic nature like that of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy encompasses two interest, private and public, making for a hearty, engaging and active governance. Bifurcation in governance, like that in liberal/democracy or capitalism/democracy, is essential because it affords a feedback system that keeps a governance vital and active, Communism obviously lacked this quality in its single mindedness and composition.

Whether he used the term liberal or capitalism, by joining it with democracy he accredited the idea in me that capitalism and democracy constituted one system, that neither can function well or properly without the other. I don't think he was aware of the implication he made at the time, that good governance requires two separate aspect of itself. Though he didn't say it, I think he believes this, as I do.

The Russian philosopher Berdyeav was astutely aware that a governing system needs a dualistic nature, a bifurcation of authority, to be credible and govern legitimately. He became aware of this as he watched Communism develop under Lenin. Communism was solely base on one theory, that of total state control, without opposition. He instinctively knew that if a government was structured thusly, on one theory, it would lead to totalitarian. He was right because Communism was a totalitarian regime and in time, as we know, a defunct one for it. Democracy and capitalism may have been just as dangerous on there own, without a challenging partner.

Niall Ferguson begged the question, as though suspicious of Fukuyama's claim, "Are capitalism and democracy the 'double helix' of the modern world?". I wondered the same thing. I did imagine that they formed something like the two strands of a governing DNA. I am glad, though, he posed the question first because as a respected scholar he gave the idea gravitus, more than I could have done. I think Ferguson believed they formed a special relationship but couldn’t quite accept the idea that they constitute the final form of human governance as Fukuyama and I believe. However, Ferguson inadvertently implied something profound, that the modern world might not be possible without such a DNA. I agree. If the world was not as advanced as it is today perhaps, then, such a DNA wouldn’t be necessary. I think the pace of this world has made such a partnership/DNA necessary. Prior to this, a DNA has never existed in human governance, either because it wasn’t yet needed or it hadn't yet been realized. The modern world has necessitated such a double helix in human governance for its survive and continue.

As I stated earlier, at first I didn't know what to make of the relationship between democracy and capitalism. Then, I thought, capitalism was an arm of Democracy. Then, because of their close ties, I came to the conclusion that neither one could exist without the other. I realized, with the helpful arguments from Fukuyama and Ferguson, they are two separate branches of the same system. That is why Ferguson's DNA idea appealed to me so much. I was thinking, if all other organic systems in nature require a DNA to keep them healthy and alive, why wouldn't this also apply to human governance. Prior to liberal democracy there had never been a DNA in human governance. Is it that one had to evolve first and then could only emerge under the right circumstances?