Fukuyama and the Last Man

The last post introduced Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man, and discussed the meaning and basis for Fukuyama's claim for the "end of history". Fukuyama claims that 1) liberal democracies are apparently the most stable forms of government, and 2) the stability of liberal democracies means that nation-states will trend towards instituting this form of government, more so than any other. The second part of the book is an attempt to explain why this is so.

Fukuyama grounds his explanation in the psychologies of the people who make up the various nation states. Fukuyama divides people into two categories: those people who covet power and wish to possess and exercise power, and those people who do not. Although most people at some time in their lives may wish to have and exercise power, there are in all cultures people who are driven to do so, and do not merely wish it to be so. These people, whom Fukuyama described as megalomaniacs, are necessary to build ever more complex civilizations but also cause a great deal of misery in most cultures. These people, the ones who relentlessly pursue power, are Fukuyama's Last Man.

Some problems occur when more than one megalomaniac is vying for power. In most cultures, there is not a civil mechanism by which the various megalomaniacs can transfer power. The transfer of power occurs in these culture frequently through violence. Moreover, there is no way to remove a Last Man from power once he has it, except through violence.

The exception to this is liberal democracy. Such systems provide for the periodic transfer of power from one leader to the next, and provide the potential leaders with a forum for combat, that is elections, whereby these leaders can satisfy themselves with the pursuit of power without having to spill blood. Moreover, there are mechanisms for bloodlessly removing from power leaders that are unacceptably corrupt, incompetent, or vicious. Plus, there is the separation of power, which provides for more billets for those who wish to exercise power.

It is ability of a liberal democratic society to satisfy the power lust of certain individuals within those societies that according to Fukuyama explains the stability and longevity of liberal democracies.

I think that Fukuyama's thesis contains some explanatory power and that his insight into the durations of governments innovative. However, the hyperbolic title of his paper and book distracted people from a more level conversation on the merits of his arguments. Of course, if it weren't for his title, it is likely that I would have never read his book. But the title that attracted so may people to his book also caused his book to become the subject of ridicule for those who never read or poor understood his thesis, which is unfortunate.

Bill