A CRITICAL STUDY OF FRANCIS FUKUYAMAS 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 Cicerois 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 Kunle, Eyedu, UzomaEdwinaOgwudileUdeogba, Jeff Nwoke, Barrister

EmmanuellaAyinche,

Johnson

UgoIgboanusi,

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 CERTIFICATION DEDICATION ACKNOWLEDEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE: A CONCEPTUAL DISCOURSE ON THE NATURE OF LIBERAL DEMOCACY 1.1.WHAT IS DEMOCRACY 1.2.THE CONCEPT LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 1.3.THE ORIGIN OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 1.4.THEORIES THAT INFLUENCED FUKUYAMAS IDEAS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY CHAPTER TWO: FUKUYAMAS IDEA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 2.1. FUKUYAMAS POLITICS 2.2. THE UNITED STATES AS AN AGENT OF HISTORY 18 22 11 4 6 7 iv-vi vii-viii 1 i ii iii

CHAPTER THREE: THE GLOBALISATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 3.1. THE FUKUYAMEAN SYSTEM OF HISTORY 3.2. THE LOGIC OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE 3.3. THE STRUGGLE FOR RECOGNITION 28 29 37

CHAPTER FOUR:ISSUES AND CRITICISMS ARISING FROM FUKUYAMAS IDEA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 4.1. WORLD WIDE LIBERAL REVOLUTIONS 4.2. POLITICAL STABILITY 4.3. THE CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS 4.4. THE RETURN OF AUTHORITARIAN GREAT POWERS 4.5. THE THEORIES OF HISTORY 4.6. GLOBAL CIVIL REPUBLICANISM 4.7. THE PROBLEMS IN AFRICA CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY 48 49 52 54 56 59 61 64 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 worlds 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 laterThe Clash of Civilizationsand the remaking of World Order 1996. He suggested an alternative; by taking an opposite position, sayingthatthe 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 Fukuyamas 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 its over all aim and objective to reassess Fukuyamas paradigm of liberal democracy. This is to do a critical study of Fukuyamas 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 Fukuyamas 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 Fukuyamas 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 Fukuyamas 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. Millassertsit 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

1 2

A. Appadorai, The Substance of Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), p.142. William 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
3 4

of

elected

or

appointed

officials,

can

participate

in

public

A. Appadorai, Op.cit, p. 137. Francis 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 6

Democracy, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/democracy, (20/11/ 2011). David G. Smith, Liberalism, David L. Saliu (Ed), International Encyclopaedia Of the Social Sciences Vol 9 and 8, (New York: Macmillan Company and The free Press,1968), p. 276. 7 Ibid.,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.

8 9

Ibid. Representative Democracy, http://en.wikipeadia.org/wiki/representativedemocracy, (25/11/ 2011). 10 Francis 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 Aristotles 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 peoples 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.

11

William 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 Lockes articulated theory of social contract. This tradition was reflected in the declaration of independence, and Americans revolution. The new United States of America became the first modern democratic States. Rousseaus 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 13

Democracy,http://en.wikipeadia.org/democracy/, (25/11/2011). William 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 nondemocratic 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 Fukuyamas 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 states 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 FUKUYAMAS 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 dont 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.
14

Ikenga K.E. Oraegbunam, John Lockes Political Liberalism: Its Relevance to Nigeria in WajopsWestvol 7 Edited by A.Oburota, (Benin: AecawaPublication, 2004), p. 95.

HEGELS 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 selfconsciousness of the wills 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 other states in international law and universal idea as mind or spirit which gives itself 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
15

David A. Duquette, Hegel Social and Political Thought, http://www.iep.utm.edu/hegel soc/, (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.16Kants 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 tactically reserved matter for future war. No independent states, large or small shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase or donation.Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished.National debts shall not be contracted with a view to external friction of states. No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state. And lastly, No state shall during war permit such acts of hostility which would made 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 of international 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). 17 Ibid.

entitled to be treated with hospitality when meeting the inhabitants of other States.18 Kants idea reflects the modern democracy. It shows the separation of power of the executive from the legislature. The limitation of Kants idea to proper democracy is that it denies universal suffrage. And lastly, Kants idea was in support of a kind of government that allows people think for themselves. ALEXANDER KOJEVES 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
18

Ibid.

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. Kojeves end of history is what Fukuyama brought to life again. The work is a renewal of Kojeves 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

Fukuyamas 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 FUKUYAMAS IDEA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

2.1. FUKUYAMAS POLITICS What does Fukuyama have to say about liberal democracy? The question presupposes Fukuyamas 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 passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end point of history as such: that is, the end point of mankinds ideological evolution and the universalisation of western democracy as the final form of human government.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 Manavers it is a fascinating historical and philosophical setting for the twenty-first century.20Also in Martins Griffithss words, the subtleties of Fukuyamas argument, is an ingeniue blend of political philosophy, historical analysis of tenetative

19

TheEndOfHistoryAndLastMan,http://en.m.wikipeadiaorg/wiki/The_End_Of_History_And_The_ Last_Man,(28/12/2011). 20 Francis Fukuyama,The End of History and The Last Man, (London: Penguin Books, 1992), front cover.

futurology21Fukuyama 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 Hegels spirit as the source of the liberal democracy that emerges at the end of history. That is he explained liberalism in the light of Hegels spirit, he brought Hegels 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 Fukuyamas 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

21

Martin 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 Fukuyamas Politicsall about? Fukuyamas 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 states 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 holdsThe 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 Britains 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.
22 23

Francis Fukuyama, Nation-Building, (New York: Basic Books, 2004), pp. 258-260. Irving 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
24

Noam 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 Americans 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: theNATOWarsaw 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 wellconceived 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 Husseins aggression against Kuwait and his violation of Non-proliferation treaty
25

Robert 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 Americas 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 boostits 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 Fukuyamas 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.26Fukuyamas 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

26 27

Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and The Last Man, (London: Penguin Books, 1992), p. 71. Timothy Burns(Ed), Reflections on the End of history Five Years Later after History: Francis Fukuyama and His Critics, (Lanham Md: Row man and Littlefield, 1997), p. 204. 28 Francis Fukuyama, Op.cit, p. 71.

democracy into two. They are; the logic of modern natural science 29, 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

29 30

Ibid.,p. xv. Ibid.,p. xvi. 31 Ibid., p.73. 32 Ibid., 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?

33 34

Ibid.,p.76. Ibid.

THE LOGIC OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE VIS--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 todays modernity quickly becomes tomorrows 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 1950s.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 asFreedom. 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
35

Ibid.,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 Fukuyamas 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--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

36

Ibid.,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
37

Ibid., 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 Fukuyamas 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 Fukuyamas word is the thymos.
38

Ibid.,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 Kojeves interpretation of Hegels 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 Hegels 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 Platos idea of the thymos to explain the desire for recognition. Thethymos is associated with courage that is the willingness to risk ones 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. Platos thymos is therefore nothing other than the psychological seat of Hegels desire for recognition; for the aristocratic master in the bloody battle is driven by the desire that other people evaluate him at his own selfworth. 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 persons 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
39 40

Ibid.,p.163. Ibid.,p.171. 41 Ibid.,p. 182. 42 Ibid.

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 Fukuyamas 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 mans ability to risk his own life. Thus the first mans 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 slaves consciousness is therefore higher than that of the master; because it is more selfconscious, 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 governments 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 Reagans America, the Christian Democracy of Continental Europe, or Social Democracy of Scandinavia.44

43 44

Ibid.,p. 293. Ibid.,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 Fukuyamas 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
45 46

Ibid.,p. 314. Ibid.,pp. 314- 315. 47 Ibid.,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 FUKUYAMAS IDEA OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY The issues and criticisms I raised here are the arguments for and against Fukuyamas 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 Fukuyamas 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/theendofhistoryandlast man, (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 worlds 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.

49

Francis 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 worlds population and 99% of the worlds 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 worlds output even though they had only 17% of the worlds 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.

50

Sean 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 Fukuyamas 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,53the 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
51

Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, (London: Simon and Schuster Inc., 1997), pp. 44-46. 52 Ibid. 53 Samuel P. Huntington, Op.cit, p. 109. 54 Noam 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 Wests 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 Irans uranium enrichment, even though they have genuine
55

Samuel P. Huntington, Op.cit, pp. 183-206.

reasons for embarking on such project is a further proof of the clash. The North Koreas 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 Fukuyamas thesis wrong. 4.4. THE RETURN OF AUTHORITARIAN GREAT POWERS. Arising from Huntingtons 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 Fukuyamas 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/theendofhistoryandlast man, (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 worlds principal customer, provision of majority of the worlds 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 Chinas position in the world?This is because China operates apolitical and economic system knows as

57

Samuel 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 view 60, it is the view

58

Francis Fukuyama, US Democracy Has Little to Teach China, http//;www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cbs6af6e82272-11e0-b6a200144feab49a.html#ixzz2MUORqHjY, (17/1/2011). 59 Harold H. Titus et al, Living Issues in Philosophy, 6th Edition, (New York: Litton Educational Publishing, Inc.1974), pp 194-198. 60 Ibid.

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 Fukuyamas stance. This also tells us more why the equality preached by Fukuyama cannot be attained, humans are human
61

Ibid.

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. Fukuyamas 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 Fukuyamas 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 streets 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
62

Noam 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 Americas 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
63

Steven 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

Fukuyamas 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 multilateral 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, Fukuyamas 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 words 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 Fukuyamas view about the homogenous state. Fukuyama holds thatthe 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
64 65

Olatunji A. Oyeshile, Reconciling the Self with the Other, (Ibadan: Hope Publications, 2005), p. 21. Francis 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 Fukuyamas 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 Fukuyamas thought.

In the second and third chapters the very ideas of Fukuyamas liberal Democracy was put forward, which rest on Fukuyamas 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 worlds 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 Fukuyamas 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 Lockes Political Liberalism: Its 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.Whats 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.