map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

At Last, 'The End Of History'

Does Francis Fukuyama's ''End of History'' actually apply to the ideology he thought had prevailed, Western liberal democracy?

March 13, 2009
By Peter Lavelle
The world is experiencing a paradigm shift that will fundamentally change how we think and live. Conventional wisdoms, some held in the West since the end of World War II and others dating from the end of the Cold War, are not only being challenged, but swept into the dustbin of history.

In 1992, Francis Fukuyama published his "The End of History and the Last Man." At the time, Fukuyama's thesis seemed obvious for the Western world: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the 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."

Today these words appear out of place, if not simply gibberish. With the exception of a few neoconservatives, a growing number of people in the West and the vast majority of the world are questioning what was unquestionable in the Western mainstream -- for example, the role of the state in the economy, how the global economy should be run, and whether there should be engagement with groups now labeled as "terrorists."

The global financial slump is destroying not only economies, but also the foundations of the West's worldview. Examples abound. Over the last 20 years, the Western world dangerously deregulated sectors of the economy to the point of privatizing what have been traditionally state services, including the military. Those who questioned the wisdom of doing so were called "socialist," a word that in American political discourse is akin to an expletive. The hard reality today is that the state must also be an active economic player to ensure we don't repeat the follies that have brought the world to its knees.

To date, the world's economy has been dominated by a small group of Western countries, a legacy of the post-World War II era called the Bretton Woods arrangement. However, the global economic order has not kept up with the times. What are known as the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) remain almost invisible when it comes to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. When the G20 countries, which includes the BRICs, meet in London next month, this grouping should replace the Group of Eight and meet twice a year until the worst of the slump has been overcome, when it should become institutionalized.

The issue of "Western liberal democracy" has been monopolized by the West, particularly the United States. The idea of democracy has been so badly abused over the past 20 years that it has been rendered almost useless and nothing more than an ideological weapon of mass destruction by the West.

Dictated Democracy

Since the end of the Cold War, democracy has come to mean one thing: promotion of Washington's foreign-policy agenda. Rarely do we hear anything about the democratization of the global economic order. Russia and China continue to be viewed with suspicion, and the concept of "fair trade" with the rest of the world has been superceded by one-sided policies under the rubric of "free trade" that only and always favor Western economies.

In the area of international security the same applies. Where is "Western liberal democracy" in this sphere? NATO claims that Russia has no right to dictate which country can enter the alliance. Fair enough. However, what right does NATO have to threaten a country, specifically Russia, with its continued expansion? What is democratic about that?

Then there is the issue of democratic elections. The West wholeheartedly supported elections in Ukraine and Georgia (the so-called "Orange" and "Rose" revolutions). Washington gloated, but longer-term results in these so-called democracies have created many doubts about the continued political development of Ukraine and Georgia. Nonetheless, Washington congratulated itself on its ability to fast-forward history -- ending history all together, as Fukuyama prophesied.

What is the result? Both Ukraine and Georgia are becoming, or have already become, failed states, and the security consequences for Russia of that collapse are profound. Washington's misguided and ideologically driven hubris has resulted in Russia being left to pick up the pieces -- and being branded authoritarian and a regional hegemon in the process. And lest we forget, Hamas was democratically elected, but "Western liberal democracy" continues to reject election results elsewhere in the world it does not like. This is simply hypocrisy.

We all face new vistas. For the majority of the world it won't be easy. But the changes we face will be very hard for the West so accustomed to its "special place in history." That place in history is changing, and in the most dramatic way. The rest of the world has funded Western prosperity for decades, making the United States the greatest debtor state in history. As we can see today, this was a failed model and ideology. Now everyone must pay and be rewarded equally an idea the West abandoned long ago.

In a strange way, Fukuyama was right in his "The End of History and the Last Man." History never ends, but bankrupt ideologies do. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was buried two decades ago. In light of recent history, Fukuyama's "Western liberal democracy" should now be preparing for its own burial ceremony. I won't weep at the funeral -- nor will most of the world.

Peter Lavelle is a political commentator for Russia Today television. The views expressed in this commentary are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of Russia Today or RFE/RL
This forum has been closed.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 5
by: Michael Averko
April 09, 2009 11:32
Peter

I hope you learned something regarding the Soviet-Finnish War.

I was a bit taken aback by the mentioned RT piece.

My comments on that subject should be taken as constructive criticism.

On another matter, someone we both know needs to find some additional activity.

;)

by: Boris from: London
March 31, 2009 23:07
Peter Lavelle and Michael Averko, it looks like you guys have no further objections... Let this session be adjourned then. but we will stay vigilant until Peter has another try at missinterpreting the freedom/liberty agenda.
Bad news for you guys, oil prices fell 7 percent yestarday.

by: Alex(Igor) from: Canberra
March 28, 2009 13:42
re: Boris & the US bases.
Perhaps, it is not difficult to imagine how a rich country can *buy* the right to have a military base somewhere - you don't need to travel further than Poland. It might be more interesting to ask why the US wants the bases that far from their territory..


by: Boris from: London
March 26, 2009 23:27
Peter Lavelle, and I'm counting on you, that you guys won't send Litvininko to buy me a cup of tea for these little commnets here on rfrl...


by: Boris from: London
March 26, 2009 23:07
Peter Lavelle, I'd appreciate your insight into anohter matter...
Why do you think none of the european or other countries (even Japan, who was devastated and brutaly conquered) is not demanding the US troops/bases to be removed from their soil?... please don't say anything about Kirgizstan and Uzbekistan. And lets establish the fact that none of the governments in question are the puppet to Obama administration...
lot of room for you Peter to assertain some more "historical truths".

Do you think its about the shared values you don't share?! Do you think those values matter, and they are the [only] way for the planet/humanity to go forward?

P.S. Amazing, as I write this message, Maxim Shevchenko on ORT is feverishly pushing your line of reasoning, frequently citing Francys Fukuyama... you guys are consistent and cohesive. I wonder who manages all of that. Should be a PR guru serving on the wrong side, deputy to Surkov at least.

If only the oil prices stayed low for couple of years... You guys would defenitely forget about Fukuyama...



by: Michael Averko
March 26, 2009 19:52
Re: Follow-up to my last set of comments

For clariy sake, the opening of paragraph two refers to PL's position (pardon the rough draft that was posted).

Regarding the mentioned land acquisition proposal, I can see where some might dismiss it as a trap for a complete taking over of Finnish territory. Reference can be made to the Soviet taking of land constituting all of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. On the other hand, note that Finland before 1917 and after 1945 had a noticeably different experience than some other areas near Russia. As part of the Russian Empire, Finland had a period of having a comparitively greater autonomy than many other future independent nations under the rule of a European empire. Among others, I recall historian John Lukacs (not known for being particularly sympathetic to Russia) making note of this (could be wrong: I seem to recall Lukacs saying Finland had the greatest autonomy of any future nation under the rule of a European empire). After WW II, Finland was neither a Warsaw Pact or NATO member. These points can perhaps explain Stalin's land acquisition proposal, instead of seeking to take over all of Finland. Vis-a-vis Stalin, Finland's location (arguably not as strategic in its entirety as some other areas) and history of not being historically aggressive towards Russia (when compared to some others) relate to this view.

On the other hand and to stress some points in my prior note:

As per Khrushchev's memoirs (which I just perused thru) and the views of others, under Mannerheim, Finland was viewed by Stalin as an anti-Communist state that would be likely allied with Nazi Germany in a future situation of conflict with the USSR.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact doesn't contradict this point. On Stalin's part, that agreement can be seen as a temporary move to buy time.

by: Michael Averko
March 26, 2009 10:32
Peter Lavelle:

Boris is a better batting practice pitcher for you to face than some others.

As a Russia Today commentator and historian by training, I refer the following:

http://www.rttv.ru/Top_News/2009-03-12/Soviet-Finnish_war_remembered.html

Upon reading the above piece (via a cut and paste of its link), one is given the impression that the USSR under Stalin wanted all of Finland. Omitted from the piece is a land acquisition proposal that Stalin offered in place of war. This was a strategic move out of concern for future conflict which (as proved correct) had Finland on the side of Nazi Germany against the USSR. The mentioned land acquisition proposal didn't seek all of Finland.

Finland rejected the idea that took the form of a diktat.

Years ago, I was made aware of this proposal by someone and a passage I recall in Khrushchev's memoirs, which according to his family weren't forged.

After WW II, the USSR seemed to feel strategically secure enough to see Finland in a neutral non-Warsaw Pact member status. Of related note, the Red Army left Austria with the understanding that said country would be neutral. Although clearly aggressive in some instances, Stalin also showed a reasonable element of pragmatic non-aggressiveness.

All this is said by someone who doesn't believe Stalin to be a particularly positive figure for Russians to look up to.

On the matter of how Stalin is viewed in Russia, I reference these two RFE/RL links which include posted comments:

http://www.rferl.org/content/In_Russia_Pulling_A_Veil_Over_Stalins_Crimes/1504923.html

http://www.rferl.org/content/Trying_To_Bury_An_Inconvenient_History/1503708.html

by: Boris from: London
March 25, 2009 16:55
Peter Lavelle, There is a quite difference between "mistake" and ivasion/aggression. Thats exactly what Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, and with baltics, central, eastern europe. It was an invasion, just the same as the nazi one. Russian empire/soviet union's geopolitics alway were about maximizing buffer zones because of geography. And the "historical truth" is that many people in those oppressed Europian countries preffered to be under german occupation rather then soviet one if they had to chose.
It would be interesting to listen what is your take about developmnets in chechnya for last 15 years, and recent war in Georgia. I'm sure you'll be able to establish some histrical truths here too.

by: John Fleming from: New Jersey
March 25, 2009 16:41
This article says nothing new about Fukuyama, Georgia and Ukraine. The Peter-Boris exchanges are basic BS.

Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty can do better. Pity those who are unaware of this.

by: Peter Lavelle from: Moscow, Russia
March 23, 2009 16:14
Boris, I am an historian by training. I have no interest in rewriting history. I want historical truth to be recognized.

Your examples: Soviet war in Afghanistan. I don’t repeat the official line, but I do say it was a terrible mistake and the Soviet Union paid dearly for this mistake.

The Baltic republics: It is an historical fact that Soviet forces did liberate them from Nazi rule, but that does not justify what happened later. The Balts called Soviet rule occupation – that is their right and I think they have a strong case to say as much. But to deny their liberation from the Nazis is simply wrong…..and the Soviets were wrong to interfere in the popular movements in Budapest (56) and Prague (68)…..

I embrace history, you use it like a bigot uses racism.
    Next 
Comments page 1 of 5
TEXT SIZE - +

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile