In Liberalism and Its Discontents, Francis Fukuyama moves to classical liberalism

Shelley Walia

Advertisement

A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise, laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. — John Rawls

FRANCIS FUKUYAMA is disenchanted and disillusioned. The triumph of history after the fall of the Soviet Union and communist states throughout Eastern Europe convinced Fukuyama that liberal democracy was the only lawful form of government that would gradually spread across the globe. This was indeed a naïve proposition that a single system of belief or political practice would endure forever and that ideological difference had finally come to an end, resulting in a deeply harmonious liberal world. The publication of his essay in 1989 on ‘The End of History’, which glorified the seductive idea of the triumph of liberalism, was to soon become suspect with the appearance of majoritarian and muscular democracies that go against the quintessence of liberalism.

Being a staunch neoconservative, Fukuyama had edited Marx out of history, the corollary to which was the notion of “endism”, or more precisely, the end of ideology, difference and debate. To arrive at such a finality was to overlook the diverse ideological positions ubiquitous in the ongoing sweep of history. Making now an urgent case for the defence of classical liberalism in his new book, ‘Liberalism and its Discontents’, or what Deirdre McCloskey labels “humane liberalism”, Fukuyama goes back on his thesis of the “end of history”, having realised that globally liberalism is threatened by the dark forces of the hard right-wing upsurge, leaving democracies embattled across the globe.

The back-sliding of liberalism as evident in the rising power of authoritarianism such as in China and Russia, or the attenuation of liberal institutions in nations like India, Hungary and Turkey has now persuaded Fukuyama to take this revisionist stand. The core values of equality, law, freedom and non-interference from the state call for a serious defence. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the present state of the world threatened by overwrought nationalism, tribal animosity and religious and ethnic fanaticism (as witnessed in populists like Viktor Orbàn, Bolsonaro, Trump and Le Pen), is a cause of concern. The optimism of the early 1990s is now only a dream.

Whatever our reaction, the discovery that we were mistaken about the Enlightenment dream of peace and progress in the world is the starting point for our reflections on the history of our times. The world is indeed in the throes of “democratic recession”, where liberal democracy has gone astray ever since the introduction of Thatcherism and Reaganomics that valourised neoliberalism, the chief malaise that has stuck modern civilisation, resulting in poverty, hunger and inequality, and more than anything else, the rise of omnipotent oligarchies.

Thatcher’s administration privatised public industries, liberalised the financial sector and undid the welfare state, ushering a newfangled era of unfettered market policies. Across the Atlantic, Reagan too blindly aped her policies. Fukuyama, taking an oppositional stand against neoliberalism, wants the state to impose tighter restrictions on the free market practices as well as carry out stricter control of the large business houses that enjoy complete impunity under the tutelage of the political leadership. It is rather encouraging to see how Fukuyama has moved away from Reaganomics, something that he has been a fervent supporter of, to classical liberalism that is grounded firmly in the fundamental principles of equality, freedom of speech and of the press, and the rule of law.

However, Fukuyama has no viable solution to offer. Understandably, theoretical support for the idea of liberalism is inadequate for winning followers who willfully refuse to swallow the political machinations, the lies and deceptions of the neoliberal variety or the Goebbels brand of propaganda. You need to see the implementation of equality and justice through the recognition of the problematics of identitarian politics. Fukuyama argues that this has not taken us anywhere, especially when widespread racist violence and the rise of ultra-nationalism leave the minorities in a state of fear and deprivation. He would like a more nuanced understanding of the autonym of the individual that has apparently got entangled with identity politics leading to the formation of groups based on gender, race and class. This, he feels, has played a singularly negative role in the upkeep of civil society.

To shed one’s religious party affiliations is difficult but the struggle for a common cause that rises beyond narrow party links and begins to recognise the larger issues at stake could be one way of coming to terms with the issues we confront. For Fukuyama, the role of the state is vital for the enforcement of liberal principles as well as bringing in limited “welfarism” and the practice of structured markets so as to undo the hold of neoliberalism.

Following the middle course, he has tried to grapple with the excesses committed by both the left and the right in their passion for liberalism. The left with its over-emphasis on identity and the right on the idea of economic freedom have let loose an era of conflict that has left societies fractured and democracy endangered. He has, therefore, very judiciously, made a case for a rejuvenated liberal practice that retains the very essence of classical liberalism.