Search:
From the Archive
"...We Make No Distinction between any of His Messengers..." (Quran 2:285)
Those Who Believe In Muhammad Are Disbelievers: PART I
Allah
Fatwas Part One-Hundred-and-Forty-Two
Between Bringing Glad Tidings and Declaring Others as Infidels
Fatwas Part One-Hundred-and-Six
"And as for the Poets - the Deviators Follow them." (Quran 26:224)
A NEW MODEL OF NATION-BUILDING
Western Sahara Roundtable on Jadaliyya
An Unpublished Interview with the Daily Telegraph on the Occasion of the Catholic Pope Visiting Egypt
Arguing with the People of the Book and with Disbelievers who Refuse the Quran as the Only Discourse in Islam
Fatwas: Part Forty
The Pharaonic Kingdom of Torture and the Absenting of the Egyptian Nation by Force from History
Fatwas Part One-Hundred-and-Fifty-Eight
Fatwas Part One-Hundred-and-Forty-Eight
"...But God Cleared him of What They Said..." (Quran 33:69): About Lies and Falsehoods Invented by Hadiths-Fabricators about Moses
They Deceive People by Talking about the So-Called the Four "Righteous" Caliphs
Quranic Terminology: Truth/True/Truly/Truthful: (2) in the Sense of Fulfillment of Divine Promises
A devastating war between Israel & Hezbollah
Ensuring Israel Military Superiority is Vital to Maintain Peace Treati
Did the History really end?


Did the History really end?
In his article, “The End of History” argues Frances Fukyama that the battle of ideologies is over. Moreover, he is arguing that it is very unlikely to have any major war with different ideological background in today’s world, like the Second World War or the Cold War. The end of the Cold War is the evident of the victory of Liberalism and the defeat of Communism. He says:
“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.” (Fukyama)
Although the threat of Communism was great to Liberalism, even greater than fascism, it was over by the USSR’s defeat in the cold war. But assuming Communism was defeated, did Liberalism really win? Did Liberalism spread in Russia and China? Yes Russia is adopting a democratic system now, and yes China is embracing a somewhat capitalist market, but both of them are far from being liberal. Is it just a transitional period for both countries that will lead them to liberal democracy? This is a question that can only be answered by both countries.
One of the results of the victory of liberalism is the spread of democracy to many countries. Another result of the victory is the transformation of democracy from a form of government into a way of living. Everything now is open to the public. The description of chemical weapons found in one of the caves of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan was downloaded from an online website which is available for anybody, including Bin Laden. The democratization of violence is a form of the democratization movement. For centuries the States has had a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in human societies. Now small group of people can do dreadful things. (Fareed)
Saying all of that, I think it is very likely to have a war within the same ideology. As we can see, Liberalism has many levels that may contradict and produce a war. This is the case now in the world with the war on Terror. Although both parties are tow different ideologies, they are connected together. Liberalism helps Terrorism with one hand, and fights it with the other. But the current war of Terror should not be looked upon as a clash of civilizations; it is more like a final round where Liberalism defeats its last present enemy.
Does that mean that Fukyama is right? Communism and Fascism lost the war. Terrorism is on the way to loose as well. Will there be no more development and evolution to produce new forms of government. Yes and No. Yes all the present enemies of Liberalism lost, but it is completely wrong to assume that there will be no more enemies. It is actually illiberal to assume such a thing because one of the characteristics of Liberalism is changing. If you are a Liberal, then you believe that all your principles are in a process of constant changing. This means that the current situation of having no enemies must at some point change.
Another argument I can use is that we have not even reached the ideal democracy. We may never do, but we are trying to. Maybe in the future we could find another form of government other than liberalism to achieve such a goal. In his book, “On Democracy” introduces Robert Dahl a similar argument about the relationship between Democracy and Market-Capitalism.:
“Market-Capitalism greatly favors the development of democracy up to the level of polyarchal democracy. But because of the adverse consequences for political equality, it is unfavorable to the development of democracy beyond the level of polyarchy.” (Dahl)
Dahl is saying that because of the social and hence political inequalities resulted by the Market-Capitalism; it can only favor democracy up to the current level, which he calls polyarchal democracy. If we need to take democracy to a farther level, we hre in a process of constant changing. This means that the current situation of having no enemies must at some point change.
Another argument I can use is that we have not even reached the ideal democracy. We may never do, but we are trying to. Maybe in the future we could find another form of government other than liberalism to achieve such a goal. In his book, “On Democracy” introduces Robert Dahl a similar argument about the relationship between Democracy and Market-Capitalism.:
“Market-Capitalism greatly favors the development of democracy up to the level of polyarchal democracy. But because of the adverse consequences for political equality, it is unfavorable to the development of democracy beyond the level of polyarchy.” (Dahl)
Dahl is saying that because of the social and hence political inequalities resulted by the Market-Capitalism; it can only favor democracy up to the current level, which he calls polyarchal democracy. If we need to take democracy to a farther level, we have to adopt another market system. Having said that, it is pretty obvious that the human race can still evolve and produce a better system to adopt democracy. That system may have a different ideology. This difference is very likely to produce war.
It is a fact the democracies are very unlikely to fight against each other. But it is another fact that Democracies have fought many wars with other types of regimes. The current war on terror is the best example. This paper is not trying to attack democracy by any mean. It is just trying to state the fact that Democracy is just a form of government after all. The end goal of a government is to preserve the liberties of its citizens. Democracy so far is the best form of government that satisfies such a purpose, however; it has its flaws. Some flaws can be solved within the system, like the tyranny of the majority. Others can not be solved by the system, like the social and political inequalities. Hopefully, there will be another form of government that will deal with flaws of democracy and keep its advantages, and that is what Liberalism is all about: A change for the better.
Work Cited

Dahl, Robert. On Democracy. Yale University Press. New Have London.

Fareed, Zakaria. The Future Of Freedom, Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. 2003
Fukuayama, Francis. The End of History. The Nationl Interest. 1989.

The views and opinions of authors whose articles and comments are posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of IQC.