UNIT TWO
1.
Critically examine Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History,” thesis.
1.1. Introduction
Francis Fukuyama, a senior researcher at the Rand Corporation and a political scientist who specializes in
Middle- Eastern political-military affairs and the foreign policy of the former Soviet Union. He has written widely
on issues relating to Soviet foreign policy in the Third World and on questions of democratization and political
economy
He wrote his famous article The End of History? in 1989 in an optimistic atmosphere, during the collapse
of Socialist regimes which was symbolized by the pulling down of the Berlin Wall. He declared the ultimate victory
of liberal democracy and argued that it may constitute the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the final
form of human government and as such constitute the end of history. In his article, he celebrated the victory of
liberalism over all other ideologies, stating that liberal states were more stable internally and more peaceful in
international relations
1.2 Critically examine Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History,” thesis
Writing at a moment when Communisim was everywhere in retreat, it was hardly surprising that
Francis Fukuyama should have proclaimed the end of the Cold War and “unabashed victory of economic and
political liberalism.” Such proclamations were already legion. What commanded attention was something far
more radical. Claiming to distinguish between “what is essential and what is contingent or accidental in world
history,” Francis Fukuyama wrote that
What we are witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or a passing of a particular period of
postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and
the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
“The end of history as such,” “the evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final
form of human government”: these were the sorts of statements—along with Francis Fukuyama’s professed
conviction that “the ideal will govern the material world in the long run”—that rang the alarm.
Some of the negative responses to Francis Fukuyama’s article, as he was quick to point out, were based
on a simplistic misreading of his thesis. For in proclaiming that the end of history had arrived in the form of
triumphant liberal democracy, Francis Fukuyama did not mean that the world would henceforth be free from
tumult, political contention, or intractable social problems. Moreover, he was careful to note that “the victory of
liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real or
material world.”
If we look at some of the criticisms about this article; Allan Bloom, who is a Professor at the Comittee on
Social Thought at the University of Chicago, criticizes Fukuyama at that point. For Kojeve and Kojeve's Hegel at
the end of history, reason has won and the real has become rational but Fukuyama says that he'll rebel against it, in
order to get history started all over again. Gertrude Him¬ melfarb, who is a Professor at the University of New York
criticizes him that he comes lately to the possibility of religion, nationalism, race and ethnicity as ideological
competitors to liberal democracy and dismiss them as not serious competitors because they have no universal
significance.
What he did maintain, however, was that liberal democracy was the best conceivable social -political
system for fostering freedom; and therefore—because “the ideal will govern the material world in the long
run”—he also claimed that liberal democracy would not be superseded by a better or “higher” form of
government. According to Francis Fukuyama, other forms of government, from monarchy to communism to
fascism, had failed because they were imperfect vehicles for freedom; liberal democracy, allowing mankind the
greatest freedom possible, had triumphed because it best instantiated the ideal. In this sense, what Mr.
Fukuyama envisaged was not the end of history—understood as the lower-case realm of daily occasions and
events—but the end of History: an evolutionary process that represented freedom’s self -realization in the world.
The “end” he had in mind was in the nature of a telos: more “fulfillment” than “completion” or “finish.”
For the most part, Fukuyama has been proven correct. Liberal democracy continued to spread after the
Cold War as humankind evolved politically and socially. It has remained the predominant, most universally
persuasive, and compelling form of government around the world. Fukuyama’s thesis was proven recently in nations
where nobody expected there to be liberalization.
2.
Has political theory ended? Give an account on the debate of end of history.
2.1 Has political theory ended?
Political philosophy or political theory is the philosophical study of government, addressing questions
about the nature, scope, and legitimacy of public agents and institutions and the relationships between them. In
much of the discussion of post-Second World War political philosophy, it is often argued that (a) the 1950s and the
1960s marked the decline or even the ‘death’ of political philosophy; that (b) the resurgence was caused, or at least
stimulated, by a sharp rise in the level of political and ideological struggle brought about by such factors as the
Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement in the United States, the disintegration of the post-war consensus, and the
emergence of the new left; and that (c) Rawls’s work A Theory of Justice symbolized the rebirth of political
philosophy.
2.2 Account on the debate of the end of history
3.
Defining Ideology: Characteristics
One main thrust of the efforts to define ideology has been to specify its distinctive usually in combination
with a comparison of allied phenomena. The special attributes assigned to ideology is “sharedness.”
Ideology shared ideas, conceptions of reality and values. It consists of group beliefs.
A second property ascribed to ideology is stability. Ideology manifests permanence or an enduring quality
as opposed to the transient nature of opinions.
Thirdly, ideology is often defined as a system or set of ideas or beliefs, and stress is laid on the systematic
element, coherence or consistency as a requirement for a body of ideas to be an ideology.
Ideology is more than an isolated idea or attitude.
A fourth distinguishing characteristic is intense belief or passionate commitment.
Fifthly, ideology is described as comprehensive all-embracing, providing a total view of society.
A sixth, much disputed attribute is the illusory nature or falseness of the ideas making an ideology. It is
maintained that ideology is characterized by distortion, simplification and undue selectivity. In this connection,
ideology is often contrasted with theory and in some instances with philosophy.
A final characteristic which has also generated considerable controversy is its positional nature or its
direction, that is, whether ideology is oriented toward change or the status quo.
4.
Functions of ideology
In addition to definitions focusing on distinctive characteristics, ideology has been defined by designating
its functions. A wide variety of functions - psychological, social political - have been assigned to ideology in the
literature.
Many writers have pointed out that ideology has an action-orientation function. Ideology constitutes a
program, and it serves as a guide to political action.
A second function of ideology is legitimation. Ideology constitutes an argument, and it serves to justify
various political objects, such as institutions and procedures, policies and leaders.
Conversely, ideology possesses a delegitimizing or unmasking function or integration comprises an
additional function.
Conversely, a divisive or partisan function of creating divisions and generating conflict is attributed to
ideology.
Lastly, ideology has a mobilization function.
5.
Debate on the end of Ideology
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Background of the debate: End of Ideology