Liberal Democracy

I am always interested in articles that evoke Francis Fukuyama. I still believe in his theory that liberal democracy is the final form of human governance and it's here to stay. If this is true, some ask, why haven’t China and Russia adopted it?

The reason liberal democracy hasn't become everybody's cup of tea yet is another matter, a matter of it being too high octane or sophisticated for some people and nations to handle. Russian and China have not yet become sufficiently sophisticated enough to fully deal with and appreciate liberal democracy or its consequences, because it is an extremely sophisticated, esoteric enterprise. Why, it took the West centuries to achieve it and here we expect novices like Russia and China to pick it up just like that. However, both Russian and China are dabbling in it, inching towards participating more in it. I thing those countries have little choice but to embrace it sooner or later.

The one thing that Fukuyama said that convinces me that liberal democracy is it is that if the modern world and its scientific advances are to continue liberal democracy is the only way to go. He believes, like I do, that, in the long run, it is the only system the can sustain the modern world and its technological demands. He also sees it as the only system that can truly fulfill people's needs and aspiration. Liberal democracy is the only alternative for giving people and developed nations the open and flexible society they need in order to deliver on the demands of the modern world. Liberal democracy and its open society is the only alternative that can generate the financial and human capital, initiatives and innovations, needed to sustain the modern world. Governing systems to remain legitimate and relevant must have the ability to renew themselves and liberal democracy is the only one that has proven it can, because it remains flexible and open.

In both Russia and China we see more and more of the fundamentals of an open society emerging, the right to consume and the freedom of mobility. These fundamentals are essential if these countries are going to continue to relate to and do business with the West. They have to accept and comply with rules and regulations that were developed in the liberal democratic world, where their biggest customers reside. China, for instance, has recently adopted product safety standards and copy right laws that liberal democracies live by. China has also recently changed its constitution and laws to allow for the ownership of private property, the beginnings and bedrock of liberal democracies.

At the beginning, after the Cold War ended, Russia was pushed and rushed, too quickly, into adopting liberal democracy. It wasn't ready. (In comparison China has taken a slower approach.) It was like the Wild West in Russia because it wasn't prepared or sophisticated enough to handle it. And economists who pushed liberal democracy on Russia weren't understanding or prepared for its 'backwardness' or lack of skills. Russia's initial attempt at liberal democracy was a disaster and its people were disillusioned by it. So it's quite understandable that there was a backlash to it and a return to some of the old ways. Nevertheless, Russia got a taste for it and hung on to some of its ways, like consumerism and freedom of mobility. Moreover, I believe that if Russia and China want to continue developing and profit from the West they will have to become more and more like the West and adopt more of its governing practices.

In addition, if these countries ever want to deal with their growing pollution problems they will have to rely and engage their populations. This can only be done in an open society, where people can discuss and debate openly. And for that to happen a more liberal social policy will have to be adopted.