The Failure of Fukuyama

The end of liberal democracy

On 23 December 2023, the Dutch newspaper, Het Financieele Dagblad (The Financial Daily) ran an interview with liberal philosopher Francis Fukuyama about the decline of the liberal world order. This article is written in response to that interview which can be read here.

In the article, Fukuyama attempts to address the changing conditions of the world and the role played in it by liberal democracy. Unfortunately, he misses the point that recent developments are the result of problems with liberal democracy itself. This article will address the failure of liberal democracy in the context of these new developments.

It has been almost 35 years since a wave of optimism swept through the world. The fall of the Berlin Wall ushered in a new era - an era in which all hostile, oppressive ideologies, such as fascism and communism, had been defeated.The gains of the United States and the collapse of the Soviet Union had created a special situation in the world. This was the first time a country and its ideology had achieved world domination. This seizure of power by the United States had allegedly inaugurated a new world order in which everyone would pursue the same goals, a new world where war would be eliminated, a world where man would finally become equal and free. 

This was bound to happen. After all, did not everyone agree on where we, as humans, should be moving? This development, according to liberals, would be the next link in a chain of societies which were modernizing. With this thought, the era of liberal democracy dawned. Whereas, in many Western countries, liberal democracies were already taking concrete shape after World War II, it was only after the fall of the Berlin Wall that this model of liberal democracy was truly seen as a model for the entire world. The Netherlands was and still is seen internationally as one of the most fortunate liberal democracies in the world. This is mainly due to our political ‘polder’ model, or consensus democracy.

Now in 2024, nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who looks objectively at today's world sees discontent and war all around. More and more problems are arising in our society. Crises today have become the norm rather than the exception. Contemporary politics try to formulate answers to these major problems, but are unable to do so. As a result, more and more people drop out of the political process or vote in protest for ever-changing parties that promise to solve the big problems. However, each time we see that even these parties are unable to solve the problems, because these parties still have to act within the framework of the current state structures.

However, it is not the case that these problems have only just happened. If we want to solve these major problems, we must first dwell on their very core. And this is the larger problem with liberal democracy.

What is really wrong with our political system?

When dealing with major political science concepts such as liberal democracy, it is important to establish a definition, so that it is clear what is being talked about. The definition of liberal democracy as described in this article is: “A political system in which a population elects its own delegates and these delegates act within the judicial context of liberalism which is becoming increasingly more progressive.”

In summary, the crisis of liberal democracy has both an internal and an external problem.

Internal conflicts: the rise of populism and the depression society

Liberal democracy has worked reasonably well so far because it was able to draw on a traditional society where a sense of community still existed. The positive effects of liberalism, and thus liberal democracy, ensured that there was at least the illusion for people that they could maximize their own interests. This focus on individualism was so successful because people had a stable core from which to develop. Traditional families were the norm, people could still recognise themselves on the streets, and opportunities to be successful were still within the reach of the individual. 

Developments in society resulting from the overblown universalist nature of liberalism, such as mass immigration, hyperindividualism and displacement have caused the social fabric of society to disappear. This is called the Böckenförde dilemma. Social capital disappears due to further liberalisation of society, so liberalism itself, and therefore liberal institutions, gradually stop functioning correctly. As a result, loneliness, misunderstanding and therefore depression reign supreme. 

These depressed feelings are further reinforced by the lack of struggle within our state structures. The polder model in the Netherlands specifically is praised because, in the eyes of liberal democrats, it is a perfect means of consensus building.

Criticism of the polder model has made FVD great. It is the familiar watering-down-everything policy. It results in policies that stay the same every time, regardless of whether people vote differently. Recent years have shown that the representatives of the so-called interest clubs who sit at the table in negotiations are part of the same elitist bubble. The job carousel has shown that these civil society organisations and politics itself are so intertwined that they represent only the interests of the elite class. As a result, normal citizens have no influence over the mainstream in the Netherlands. Yet as the culture within the Netherlands becomes more and more progressive, the frames of reference of administrators acting within this rigidity of the system also become more progressive. As a result, the entire political spectrum shifts further and further to the left. The shifting of this culture is a byproduct of the trend of further globalisation of the personal interests of these cartel politicians. Everyone always wants to participate in the latest hype blowing over from the United States in order to be seen internationally.

Where struggle is the natural way of existence in human beings, and thus political struggle is of great importance in life, liberal democracy has regulated and tried to capture this struggle. This would work if everyone wanted broadly the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth today. The universalist liberal dream has ensured that elites are concerned with nothing but expanding their own power beyond the borders of the Netherlands. Dutch sovereignty is used as currency for the careers of these administrators.

Consequently, the constitution no longer operates in the service of the people, but serves only global idealistic interests. Articles 93 and 94, which establish that the international legal order takes precedence over national law, are disastrous for Dutch sovereignty and are therefore a direct attack on the Dutchman. The same applies to article 1, which forces society to adapt the leftist view on discrimination. Article 1 of the Constitution ensures that any possibility of restoring the Netherlands is legally impossible. 

This is the big problem with liberal democracy. There is gradually no longer a demos which can act. Also, because of the resulting party cartel, there is no longer any question of the people being able to influence the larger direction of the Netherlands. Finally, the population no longer has any influence on the cultural frameworks within which administrators act, given that these elites are only concerned with the international. The examples of former Minister Sigrid Kaag as the new UN envoy in Gaza, former Minister Wopke Hoekstra as the new European Commissioner and Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s desire to become the next secretary-general of NATO confirm that this is the norm rather than the exception.

The rigidity of our liberal consensus democracy has meant that political institutions are not adaptive enough to deal with a changing society, creating an ever-widening gap between what is reality on the streets and what fiction politics lives in. The result is that more and more people doubt the system itself, or realise that it no longer makes sense. As a result, their vital spirit turns inward and they become apathetic as a form of self-protection. Yet these feelings continue to play out in the background, leading to a disconnect between a person's internal world and external world. There is no better recipe for depression! Gradually, the still vital part of the population is being pushed in increasingly extreme directions. As the Dutch political scientist, Arend Lijphart, already predicted in his earlier work, consensus democracy works in the short term, but in the longer term leads to enormous conflict.

Indeed, when people find out in large numbers that liberalism leads to universalism (thus one people and one government) and is disconnected from personal interest or the interest of one's own group (popular sovereignty) they will reject liberal institutions. As a response, liberal democracy is increasingly showing its true face. The system cannot deal with the internal competing visions which are gradually emerging. This makes liberal democracy authoritarian – as we can see with terrible clarity in Poland in recent days.

Supporters of liberal democracy always cite the argument of the liberal philosopher, Karl Popper. Popper argued that limits should be placed on how tolerant liberal society should be. The credo: "we must not be tolerant of intolerance" is central here. Yet Popper, and with him liberal democrats, forgot that this statement is itself just as intolerant. To determine what is tolerant and intolerant, one must first draw up a definition of these two words. Those who draw up this definition are then given the power to determine what expressions would and would not be allowed in a society.

Whereas in the beginning parties like the Dutch Freedom Party used this argument in their position to ban Islam in the Netherlands, this argument is now also increasingly openly used by parties like D66 (liberal democrats) to put away political dissidents. This is also the argument that is being used to ban Forum for Democracy. After all, progressive-liberal elites get to decide what tolerance means. In practice, then, liberal democrats ensure that only their views are included in the definition of "tolerance”, making liberal democracy authoritarian. Popper's observation is more an indication of the failure of liberalism than an argument in favour of it. Apparently liberal democracy only works for progressive liberalists. 

Rejecting Huntington, the battle of civilizations and the external conflict: the end of liberal hegemony

Fukuyama's idea means that liberal democracy is not just a state structure but that it is also the latest evolution of man. Therefore, according to this view, liberal democracy has become the dominant form of state in the West not just because liberalism defeated the other ideologies through a confluence of circumstances.  Liberalism and therefore liberal democracy would have always won, whatever the circumstances. The form of government of liberal democracy thus becomes an expression of civilisation.

In the attacks of September 11, 2001, the new world order of liberalism confronted its first challenge. The rise of terrorism, and the wars that resulted from the attacks on the Twin Towers, were a major blow to the liberal Utopianism of people like Fukuyama. As a result of these events, however, Fukuyama's idea was not abandoned. Although previously established, the theory of "The Clash of Civilisations" of American political scientist Samuel Huntington became dominant. Huntington, like Fukuyama, argued that after the fall of the Soviet Union, the era of ideology was over. The world would now fall back to a situation where culture remained the main difference between peoples. The new conflicts of the new world would therefore take place purely over culture. 

Huntington's theory was integrated into Fukuyama's general view. There was indeed a clash of civilisations; however, the other civilisations which continued to oppose liberal democracy were deemed less developed than the West. This was used by the American Empire/the West to continue its wars. The task of the enlightened Westerner was to bring civilisation and thus liberal democracy to other civilisations. 

This line of thinking is still dominant in parties such as the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV). At the time, the PVV’s line was that “barbaric Muslims” did not want to integrate into Dutch culture. This narrative has been dominant in the Netherlands since Pim Fortuyn. Multiculturalism has failed because the people who came to live here do not want to respect progressive-liberal values.

However, we are gradually seeing the cultural conflict between progressive-liberalism and various forms of traditionalism blossom all over the world, both inside and outside the West. It is not only people from other civilisations who are beginning to oppose progressive-liberalism. Criticism has come from within the original populations of Western countries as well. The reasons for this were mentioned earlier in this article.  The lack of unity within the West and the unwillingness of Western elites to accept that their populations felt displaced further undermined confidence in the West. Militarily/technologically, the U.S. empire also began to lose ground.

Therefore, the U.S. failure to annex Ukraine into the liberal world has a deeper meaning. Russia's rise against the U.S., and Russia's current gains in Ukraine, mark the end of U.S. hegemony and the end of the moral hegemony of liberal democracy. This, combined with the previous loss of the U.S. in the Middle East, the loss in the Sahel region, the current role the West is playing in the Israel conflict, the rise of the BRICS, and the internal cultural conflict in the West, create the perfect storm for change. 

Where people do not realise today that our political system is preventing us from solving the big problems, a changing world order will make people realise that the liberal narrative imposed on us by the United States is not the only possible one. A weakening of the U.S. will mean a weakening of liberal institutions in the West. This will provide the opportunity for the Netherlands to make the transition to other models of statecraft. Modern models that may well have the ability to solve the great problems of our time. 

Where Fukuyama himself incorrectly tries to integrate the new developments in the world into his thinking, Western elites unfortunately do not.

It is difficult to predict the future, but what is certain that huge changes are coming for both the Netherlands and the rest of the world. It is up to us to best respond to this and become the leaders of the future.