|Brocker I 806
Democracy/Fukuyama: is the model of order that relatively satisfies the human need for social recognition better than other systems. With the victory of this model, the battle for recognition ends and, according to Fukuyama, the driving force of history is stopped. However, this is a Pyrrhic victory, because the individual needs the fight.
FukuyamaVsDemocracy: one of the shortcomings of the democratic model is social inequality. Fukuyama also does not predict a quick victory for democracy. The struggle for them continues between a so-called post-historical world (in the industrialized countries of the Global North) and a historical world (in the industrializing countries of the Global South).
In relative terms, however, the democratic system produces the least inequality.
The democratic system itself is a good to be aspired to.
FukuyamaVsDoyle, Michael/FukuyamaVsRussett, Bruce: Fukuyama shares the thesis of Doyle (1986)(1) and Russett (1993) (2) that democracies are peaceful among themselves, but wars between democracies and non-democracies are likely. But he goes beyond that and sees a potential cause of war in the constant striving for recognition.
Brocker I 808
Democratization/History/Fukuyama: For Fukuyama, the spread of democracy began in the mid-1970s with the - according to Huntington - so-called "Third Wave of Democratization". This began with the Clove Revolution in Portugal in 1974, then spread to Latin America, Eastern Europe and East Asia, and finally came to a temporary end in Africa. See History/Fukuyama, Universal History/Fukuyama.
Brocker I 815
Democracies/MillerVsFukuyama/MaceyVsFukuyama: 1. Fukuyama overestimates the actual spread of democracies and their alleged consequences. He sees many states as liberal-democratic which do not deserve this name, e.g. Iran, Peru, Singapore. (4) (written 1992).
2. VsFukuyama: The interaction between capitalism and democracy does not even function smoothly in the USA. (1)
3.VsFukuyama: Fukuyama blurs the differences between democratic systems, especially between inclusive and exclusive democracies. (1) But it is precisely this blindness that leads to the misconception that an expansion of democracies leads to the end of history.
Solution/Miller/Macey: Thesis: The story is just beginning! And in the sense of a struggle for the system that can best be connected to a capitalist economic system.
Liberalism/MillerVsFukuyama/MaceyVsFukuyama: When Fukuyama speaks of liberal democracies, he makes no distinction between liberalism and democracy. In reality, however, there is a difference depending on whether rights take precedence or majority decisions.
The wider the sphere of the
Brocker I 816
individual rights, the more difficult it will be to organise majorities. Fukuyama's mistake is to describe democracies as liberal as soon as they recognize certain rights (property, free market economy). In reality, however, many of the states Fukuyama classifies as democracies are not liberal.
1. Michael W. Doyle, „Liberalism and World Politics“, in: American Political Science Review 80/4, 1986, p. 1151-1169.
2. Bruce M. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace. Principles for a Post-Cold War World, Princeton 1993.
3. Jonathan R. Macey/Geoffrey P. Miller, “The End of History and the New World Order. The Triumph of Capitalism and the Competition between Liberalism and Democracy”, in: Cornell International Law Journal 25/2, 1992, p. 277-303.
4. Ebenda p. 281f.
Anja Jetschke, „Francis Fukuyama, Das Ende der Geschichte“, in: Manfred Brocker (Ed.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
The End of History and the Last Man New York 1992
Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018