Fukuyama's New Perspective on Democracy

[TaiShang]

Fukuyama offers new perspective to review democracy
Source:Global Times

Stanford professor Francis Fukuyama caught the eyes of the global academic circle once again by publishing a new magnum opus called Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy at the end of September.

The political scientist made a name for himself in 1989 by concluding that Western democracy is "the end of history." A quarter-century on, he has recalibrated his theory substantially, making "a strong and effective state" a high priority.

Fukuyama notes that social order rests on three distinctive features - a strong and effective government, the rule of law and political accountability. He stresses that the sequencing of political development is crucial, arguing that "those countries in which democracy preceded modern state building have had much greater problems achieving high-quality governance than those that inherited modern states from absolutist times." Many African countries serve as proof demonstrating that democracy has only exacerbated their problems in terms of governance.

Some people commented on Fukuyama's new book, saying he has shifted his attention from democracy to the establishment of state capacity.

Although Fukuyama's focus rests on US society, on which he calls to rebuild an effective government, his analysis of the sequencing of political development is based on global political experiences, which is the most dazzling part.

Democracy was deified in the global political arena after the Cold War. Although a lot of developing countries have fallen victim under its banner, it is still being worshiped as the ground rule.

Fukuyama, a former firm advocate for Western democracy, now admits that democracy could be either constructive or sabotaging. Such theoretical recalibration carries global significance, as democracy should have been observed from a regular perspective and researched by down-to-earth approaches.

According to Fukuyama, China could be categorized as the type of country which is still deficient in political development, but a strong and effective government is its biggest advantage. China needs to put more efforts into the establishment of the rule of law and democracy. Fukuyama's theory cannot be used as an endorsement that China can slow down the construction of democracy and the rule of law, and it must be reminded that a strong government doesn't mean everything.

Fukuyama's research gives a positive response to China's political building, demonstrating that China's achievements are not made out of sheer luck. China is on the right track.

It is hard to tell whether what Fukuyama promotes could offer a more realistic perspective, which can be accepted by a majority of Western academics and the public discourse. But Fukuyama's new book is sending a signal, implying that wrong theories will be rectified someday and only facts can tell the truth.

 

[Steve781]

The US has a selective support for democracy. Cambodia but not Vietnam. Syria but not Bahrain. Libya but not Egypt. Zimbabwe but not Rwanda etc.

 

[Aepsilons]

The US has a selective support for democracy. Cambodia but not Vietnam. Syria but not Bahrain. Libya but not Egypt. Zimbabwe but not Rwanda etc.

These are secondary to said nation's historical and current geopolitical alignment.

 

[TaiShang]

These are secondary to said nation's historical and current geopolitical alignment.

I guess these are primary to the said country's historical (including now) foreign policy discourse. Rhetoric might change over time (such as from "red scare" to "Islamic terrorism) but the essence remains the same.

 

[Maxtini]

China is lucky~ why? because Deng Xiaoping managed to win in a post-Mao political struggle to unleash a market reform policy. Thank God the Gang of Four was purged!

In such system where change/reform could only be initiated by those in power, it solely relies on the genuine will from the leadership to improve the country. What happen when there were no such leadership? Just look at North Korea. The only thing North Korean can do is just pray that Kim Jong-Un has a change of heart or wait until he dies (40 years later) and hope the next successor will be as reformist as Deng.

 

[Aepsilons]

I guess these are primary to the said country's historical (including now) foreign policy discourse. Rhetoric might change over time (such as from "red scare" to "Islamic terrorism) but the essence remains the same.

The one thing that I admire about nation states' and their relations to others are never static. I don't like to sound so cliche , but one's current ally may one day be one's enemy, and vice versa. World powers are divided according to their influence and capabilities in the world stage; the economic and military major powers usually dominate the geostrategic orbit and have partners aligned. This alignment, in a political context, is not static either. For example I would call into example the relationship of Japan and the United States. Tho clearly aligned to the west, politically and economically that is, Japan has very vibrant relationship (and increasing) that is cooperative with China and Russia. Nation states do not operate through black and white vantage points, and people that think that this is the reality are only showcasing their own naivety.

China is lucky~ why? because Deng Xiaoping managed to win in a post-Mao political struggle to unleash a market reform policy. Thank God the Gang of Four was purged!

In such system where change/reform could only be initiated by those in power, it solely relies on the genuine will from the leadership to improve the country. What happen when there were no such leadership? Just look at North Korea. The only thing North Korean can do is just pray that Kim Jong-Un has a change of heart or wait until he dies (40 years later) and hope the next successor will be as reformist as Deng.

First, let me say that it is undeniable that Deng Xiaoping definitely played a critical role in opening China to the West and to Capitalism. However, he was not a 'one man show', you understand? He had stood on the shoulders of the activities and accomplishments of great men before him, many of whom are not given their due. I think that China's opening to the west was also due in part to the diplomatic headway by Zhou Enlai. It was Zhou that played a critical role during the Asian-African Conference, that had cemented China's role as leader of the undeveloped world, and a partner for development. It provided the clout that is seen today. Also, we should not forget Zhou Enlai's role in the 1970 Shanghai Communique who had prepared the meeting with Kissinger, and had thus constructed the platform for which Nixon would meet Mao. Let us not forget the role of China's greatest diplomat, and own revolutionary hero, Zhou Enlai.

 

[TaiShang]

China is lucky~ why? because Deng Xiaoping managed to win in a post-Mao political struggle to unleash a market reform policy.

For each new period and new requirements, China has produced the right leadership. Something that India severely lacked. Chairman Mao was the right person for his time. And those who followed him were also right leaders. China has not become what it is today out of pure coincidence. There is no such thing in historical progress outside the laws of physics. And the laws of physics seem to bring India only thus far and China that far.

In such system where change/reform could only be initiated by those in power, it relies on the genuine will from the leadership to improve the country.

There is in fact a myriad ways to influence the government and get sound results. A myriad of ways that India still lacks today. Hence it is perennial ineffective and unresponsive leadership. Just because you know elected a nationalist-populist that talks just the way you would love to hear does not mean India has achieved something tangible. You need to proved it through concrete human development. Numbers, Indian, numbers.

What happen when there were no such leadership? Just look at North Korea. The only thing North Korean can do is just pray that Kim Jong-Un has a change of heart or wait until he dies (40 years later) and hope the next successor will be as reformist as Deng.

There will be a leadership in China always responding to the call of the day. This is the beauty of China's ever progressing development and governance model. China is not stuck in some Western-defined notions. Obviously democracy and elections do not feed the two million kids starving to death every year.

Now I question whether India's regime is less genocidal than North Korea's.

China does not copy the West or the others, even though something has worked miraculously for them. China does make its own system work. The key concepts should come from the very history and civilization of a nation. If there is going to be borrowing, it should be severely eclectic. Borrowing concepts and ways blindly does not help, as it does not help India at all.

 

[Maxtini]

Why are you talking about India? I don't think it is relevant.

Of course China's reform were not a one man show~ I would said it was the result of political struggle between two factions (the reformist vs. Conservative) within the CCP post-Mao, in which the reformist win.

The same was also observed post-Kim Jong Il in North Korea. But it seems the conservatives managed to entrenched their power.

But all in all, the narrative is still the same. Ordinary people takes liitle or no influence in such battle. That is why I say China is lucky. Do you think ordinary Chinese back then has any influence in deposing the Gang of Four and ascending Deng XiaoPing as leader?

There will be a leadership in China always responding to the call of the day. This is the beauty of China's ever progressing development and governance model. China is not stuck in some Western-defined notions. Obviously democracy and elections do not feed the two million kids starving to death every year.

I wonder what exactly is "China's ever progressing development and governance model"? The only progress is the ever changing governance style. It is undeniably solely relies on the genuine will from the top elites/leaderships to improve the country. Check and Balances wise to prevent abuse is actually lacking. In which I think the Chinese are very grateful that up until now their top leaderships still holds true to the goal of the betterment for all.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

China is lucky~ why? because Deng Xiaoping managed to win in a post-Mao political struggle to unleash a market reform policy. Thank God the Gang of Four was purged!

By Hua Guofeng, a conservative who then stepped down.

There's no luck in national development except for former colonial countries. Indonesia inherited one of the wealthiest, most orderly and most developed colonies in Southeast Asia. China had no such luck because it was never colonized thus was a target for foreign aggression. 65 years later, the results of each are clear for all to see. Indonesia has tried being anti-China, pro-Japan, pro-US, protectionist, free trade, military dictatorship and nothing worked - it just hasn't tried the obvious solution of being pro-China.

 

[TaiShang]

Why are you talking about India? I don't think it is relevant.

It is relevant. It is required to provide a comparative perspective.

Of course China's reform were not a one man show~ I would said it was the result of political struggle between two factions (the reformist vs. Conservative) within the CCP post-Mao, in which the reformist win.

That's history. What matters is today. The struggle or whatever you name it has produced tangible empirical results. Each polity has certain internal struggles regardless of the nature of government. China's internal struggle has produced its own results and India's internal struggle has produced its own.

Not necessarily reformists won. That was the call of the day. Again, we need to look at it from a dialectical materialist perspective: For a synthesis, you always need anti-thesis. Although the outcome would still be unpredictable, in China's case, it worked to a great extent although historical progress never stops.

The question, again in comparative perspective, is whether other country's anti-thesis produced good or desirable synthesis.

But all in all, the narrative is still the same. Ordinary people takes liitle or no influence in such battle. That is why I say China is lucky. Do you think ordinary Chinese back then has any influence in deposing the Gang of Four and ascending Deng XiaoPing as leader?

There is no luck in the progress of history. It is all about calculated action-reaction cycle. Reformation of the economy was the required step to take at the time and the collective consciousness took that step. It did not happen, maybe, in Indian or British way, but, it did happen in Chinese way. What China cares about when it comes to progress is obviously different what you care about as an Indian.

I wonder what exactly is "China's ever progressing development and governance model"? The only progress is the ever changing governance style

It is "adopting to the necessities of the time while remaining true to the nation's own historical dynamics in terms of governing the country's economic, political and social affairs in order to ensure economic development and social progress."

It is undeniably solely relies on the genuine will from the top elites/leaderships to improve the country. Check and Balances wise to prevent abuse is actually lacking. In which I think the Chinese are very grateful that up until now their top leaderships still holds true to the goal of the betterment for all.

There is no luck. Maybe there is luck in India, or some spiritual equivalent of it, but there is no luck in China's governance model -- domestic and global. I will not lecture you on the perennial concepts of the Chinese political theory; it is up for grabs in good quality scholarship. But I can tell you, there is immense checks and balances which correct the faults and failures over time.

I am not saying it is all rosy and there is nothing to criticize. But, things are done in the way China defines and regulates its own political discourse. There are adaptations, but, there is no "one-size-fits-all" attitude.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Its kind of funny how this Indonesian says that Chinese people had no decision making power in the history of the country, as if Indonesians did. Did Suharto consult Indonesians when he drove the economy into the ground and started a genocide of minorities? Ever wonder how both the CPC came to power? In the biggest people's revolution in history. Even today this revolution is studied for its impact on history and the way a small gathering of intellectuals in Shanghai became one of the most powerful and influential political forces in the world.

 

[Maxtini]

It is relevant. It is required to provide a comparative perspective.

That's history. What matters is today. The struggle or whatever you name it has produced tangible empirical results. Each polity has certain internal struggles regardless of the nature of government. China's internal struggle has produced its own results and India's internal struggle has produced its own.

Not necessarily reformists won. That was the call of the day. Again, we need to look at it from a dialectical materialist perspective: For a synthesis, you always need anti-thesis. Although the outcome would still be unpredictable, in China's case, it worked to a great extent although historical progress never stops.

The question, again in comparative perspective, is whether other country's anti-thesis produced good or desirable synthesis.

There is no luck in the progress of history. It is all about calculated action-reaction cycle. Reformation of the economy was the required step to take at the time and the collective consciousness took that step. It did not happen, maybe, in Indian or British way, but, it did happen in Chinese way. What China cares about when it comes to progress is obviously different what you care about as an Indian.

It is "adopting to the necessities of the time while remaining true to the nation's own historical dynamics in terms of governing the country's economic, political and social affairs in order to ensure economic development and social progress."



There is no luck. Maybe there is luck in India, or some spiritual equivalent of it, but there is no luck in China's governance model -- domestic and global. I will not lecture you on the perennial concepts of the Chinese political theory; it is up for grabs in good quality scholarship. But I can tell you, there is immense checks and balances which correct the faults and failures over time.

I am not saying it is all rosy and there is nothing to criticize. But, things are done in the way China defines and regulates its own political discourse. There are adaptations, but, there is no "one-size-fits-all" attitude.

So what exactly is that? You use philosophical words as if it were something concrete but in reality nothing could be deduce as a logical and coherent system. You say there are immense checks and balances~ what are the check? What are the balances? How the system works?

Its kind of funny how this Indonesian says that Chinese people had no decision making power in the history of the country, as if Indonesians did. Did Suharto consult Indonesians when he drove the economy into the ground and started a genocide of minorities? Ever wonder how both the CPC came to power? In the biggest people's revolution in history. Even today this revolution is studied for its impact on history and the way a small gathering of intellectuals in Shanghai became one of the most powerful and influential political forces in the world.

No, Suharto didn't~ and its governance style was hated by most Indonesian.
I don't think that has something to do with my statement about political economic history of China as observed fact through logical deducation. Your "ad hominem" argument does not contribute anything to this discussion.

The rise of CCP through revolution does not have any immediate impact about the development of politics of China post-Mao (Gang of Four vs. Deng's faction vs. Hua's Faction). And I think it is irrelevant to the fact that today's China economic rise was the result of political struggle between factions inside CCP that has nothing to do with ordinary chinese people.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

today's China economic rise was the result of political struggle between factions inside CCP that has nothing to do with ordinary chinese people.

I think the result of Chinese economic development was due to much more mundane things such as a developed industrial base, established educational systems, accumulated scientific and industrial infrastructure from the 50's, 60's and 70's, a system of law and order, and most of all, checks and balances. Yes, checks and balances on the units of government - individuals.

If you adapt a view that only the top-level policy matters, then there is not a single country in this world where ordinary citizens have done anything good for their country other than follow orders.

 

[Maxtini]

I think the result of Chinese economic development was due to much more mundane things such as a developed industrial base, established educational systems, accumulated scientific and industrial infrastructure from the 50's, 60's and 70's, a system of law and order, and most of all, checks and balances. Yes, checks and balances on the units of government - individuals.

If you adapt a view that only the top-level policy matters, then there is not a single country in this world where ordinary citizens have done anything good for their country other than follow orders.

It does not preclude the fact that it was made possible because of Deng's reformist idea. What happen if Deng and Hua failed to outmanouevred the Gang of Four? Will Chinese people back then has anything to say?
I bet North Korea is the reflection of what China would be if those reformists somehow failed to outmanuoevre the conservatists.

Leadership plays a very important role in a country's development. But do we have any chance to choose the right leader? In democracy ordinary citizens can participate in the country's direction thorugh election of their leader. Either you choose the right or wrong guy, only the citizens are to be blamed and be held responsibled. If you chose the wrong leader, you could have the chance to chose the right one every 4 or 5 years. If no capable leaders ever being chosen, then it was the fault of the citizens, provided elections are conducted in free and fair manner.

In China and North Korea, for example, it all depends on the outcome of political manoevreing of the elites where ordinary citizens have little or not influence. Will it produce a good leader? Only god knows~ that's why I assert that China is lucky to have leaders as capable as Deng Xiaoping, while North Korean is the unlucky one to have leaders such as Kim Jong Il. When can the leadership change? Either through violent revolution, Kim Jong Un died, or suddenly he has a change of heart.

 

[Nike]

It does not preclude the fact that it was made possible because of Deng's reformist idea. What happen if Deng and Hua failed to outmanouevred the Gang of Four? Will Chinese people back then has anything to say?
I bet North Korea is the reflection of what China would be if those reformists somehow failed to outmanuoevre the conservatists.

Leadership plays a very important role in a country's development. But do we have any chance to choose the right leader? In democracy ordinary citizens can participate in the country's direction thorugh election of their leader. Either you choose the right or wrong guy, only the citizens are to be blamed and be held responsibled. If you chose the wrong leader, you could have the chance to chose the right one every 4 or 5 years. If no capable leaders ever being chosen, then it was the fault of the citizens, provided elections are conducted in free and fair manner.

In China and North Korea, for example, it all depends on the outcome of political manoevreing of the elites where ordinary citizens have little or not influence. Will it produce a good leader? Only god knows~ that's why I assert that China is lucky to have leaders as capable as Deng Xiaoping, while North Korean is the unlucky one to have leaders such as Kim Jong Il. When can the leadership change? Either through violent revolution, Kim Jong Un died, or suddenly he has a change of heart.

i am agree with you, North Korean back in 70 decades is much more advances society than PRC at the times. They were very industrialized, their people well educated compared even to South Korean. But their lack of genuine leadership and lack of vision and insight hindering much of their progresses and resulting in what we call today North Korea.