The End of History, Francis Fukuyama, 1989
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
–
Russians vote in general election, 2 December 2007
Eleven parties are competing for places in the lower house, the Duma – though it is not clear how many will secure the 7% needed to qualify for seats.
President Vladimir Putin’s party is predicted to win, boosting his bid to retain power after leaving the Kremlin.
Opposition parties have accused the government of stifling their campaigns.
Casting his vote at a polling station in Moscow, Mr Putin said that people should “vote for those people that you can trust”.
Venezuelans vote on constitution, 2 December 2007
Voters have been turning out in numbers in Venezuela’s referendum on far-reaching constitutional changes sought by President Hugo Chavez.
The raft of proposed reforms would see the end of presidential term limits and the Central Bank’s autonomy removed.
Mr Chavez says the proposed changes would return power to the people, but opponents accuse him of a power grab.
–
Entropy: The energy form of a system that relates to its internal state of disorder. High entropy levels are disordered states, low entropy levels are characteristic of ordered states.
Western societies always assumed that free markets and political liberalism go hand in hand because we in the West – especially the sons of Albion – think of political rights and personal rights (perhaps especially property rights) as being inextricably interwound. Put another way, a government of the people cannot take from the people that which the people themselves do not willingly agree to share. Non-democratic free market economies such as those found in Singapore and Hong Kong were deemed insular exceptions that proved the general rule.
Vladimir Putin’s Russian compatriots seem eagerly willing to cede more and more of their political rights for economic stability and predictability, even as Putin himself tolerates a light hand on the markets so long as his political power remains unchallenged. In Venezuela, a comfortable majority seems ready to cede control over their constitution, government and economy to a personality-driven socialist/statist model that has failed everywhere else it has been attempted. Both are underwritten less by any intellectually defensible model of political thought than by the fortuitous existence of “found wealth” under their feet in the form of energy supplies.
Meanwhile, back in the West, forward movement in progressive circles is described as identity group empowerment based on ethnicity and gender, just to name two examples. These groupings hope to supersede the previous, well-ordered system under which laws exist and rights are enshrined in order preserve the rights of individuals against government. The progressive model is a new, more ad hoc (and therefore disordered) system that uses government as a tool to redistribute the property of non-favored identity groups to those that can build effective confiscatory coalitions.
History is not dead after all.
And it never will be, either.
Dear Lex,
In all fairness to Mr. Fukuyama, what he meant was not that lots of bad stuff wouldn’t happen, but that with the end of Communism the last credible alternative to western style freedom/democracy/capitalism had failed. Lots of country’s might chose to stay in their historical cul-de-sacs, but they would be seen as such by most “right thinking” people. Think that’s problematic but it not quite as stupid as it sometimes is made to sound.
Fukuyama’s 1989 book and stirring ideas, although fresh and innovative at the time are now a little obsolete and overcome by events. Indeed he has since qualified his earlier positions, drifted away from his earlier neo-conservatism, and even has been surprisingly highly critical of the Iraq invasion.
I also find it interesting that many are so comfortable in always marrying certain economic systems with certain political systems, despite there being no compelling nor fundamental reason to do so.
Next I thought the “progressive model” was just opposite of what you stated, in it hoping to “supercede” the “rights of individuals against government.” Did I misread? Indeed while I’ve been hearing conservative support for, there has been a progressive outcry against our government’s recent attacks on Habeas Corpus and other erosions of our personal rights and freedoms supposedly Constitutionally guaranteed.
Finally, income redistribution is not an evil, but is a necessary function of government. Income redistribution occurs in most all-democratic countries, and with reason. Without some reasonable redistribution, radical extremes in incomes and wealth result. This disequilibrium engenders the entropy and chaos that ultimately leads to radical reform including in the extreme, civil conflicts, coups and revolutions. Much better to have some balance and a tendency toward social and economic equilibrium than the converse, I think.
We do thankfully agree, however… History is hardly dead after all.
The only problem is that right now there are two different models of democracy. Real democracy as the US has (for all its problems with Pelosi and the rest) and symbolic democracy as is practiced in Singapore, Russia and in Venezula. Chavez is not done just because this gambit failed-he will arrest who he needs to and find another way to stay in power.
The same is true in Singapore, where the natives have been forced to cede real rights to the government in order to preserve the stability of the government. That is Putin’s model and in Russia I would submit it is the same way-he is allow ing people to gain wealth as long as they play the game his way. Sort of a harsher version Lee Kwan Yeu. Plus I think the Russians secertly applaud his efforts to restore greatness to Russia.
With respect, Skippy, democracy is no less or more real in Singapore than anywhere else. When was the last time some yahoo truck driver from Toledo, Ohio (or Rio Linda, Rush’s favourite place) or rutabaga farmer somewhere in Kansas become a President? Democracy in the USA, at least at the state/national level, is more of a Timocracy.
Which may or may not be good.
What you are speaking of is freedom; political, economic, religious and expression. Bearing in mind that Singapore still has the Speaker’s Corner tradition carried over from colonial days. Bearing in mind that the typical S’porean also still stereotypically cares mostly about the 4Cs – Car, Condo, Cash and credit Card – and as long as the government doesn’t get in the way, they couldn’t care much less.
Bearing in mind also that most S’poreans are actually proud of their National Service (universal male conscription). First thing any two Singaporeans ask each other is “which [armed force/regiment/battalion/squad/name your organisational unit] did you serve in?”
Bearing in mind also that the opposition in Singapore does not get ‘offed’.
Now, here in Malaysia, maybe you could say it was symbolic. But not even then – Terengganu remains a thorn in BN’s flesh. Sarawak remains stubbornly UMNO-free.
Just a thought.
You should go over to Exapt at Large’s blog-he has very different take on the “gahmen”.