Questioning the Continuity of Democracy in Western Nations

~Richard Wood, Class of 2010

“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.” – Francis Fukuyama, The End of History?

     In 1989 when these words were written, the United States was about to enter into a period of international peace the likes of which it had not seen in half a century. World War II and the Cold War had both posed an existential threat to Western democracy and both were defeated, in the first case by direct military victory and in the second case by attrition. Not only had the United States and its Western allies won in two kinds of wars but it had defeated challengers on both the Right and Left. Therefore it is not hard to understand why in the heady days following the end of the Cold War it would be possible to conceive of liberal democracy as the center of the political universe; not an opinion of some group of people but the natural order of things disrupted only by small and doomed opposition.

     Twenty years later it is abundantly clear that that optimism was not completely justified. The events of September 11, 2001 demonstrated that liberal democracy had not conquered all opposition. But if Western nations have become more pessimistic about the possibility of a final victory for democracy against all challengers, it is chiefly in regards to its progress in those countries where it has not yet existed.

     But one assumption seems unchallenged: that in the Western world, democratic government will persist. However this is the product of a misplaced confidence.

     We have to first consider the nature of the two victories mentioned before. There is undeniably something very reassuring about democracy’s triumph against the challenge of fascism and communism. The democratic powers had responded to the taunt that their system invariably produced weakness by defeating regimes whose explicit aim was to cultivate a martial spirit and organize society around militarism. Furthermore, the ideology of liberalism and democracy managed to prove their continuing relevance against the claim that industrial progress demanded a new politics of mass organization.

     However it is possible to consider these events in a very different way. The defeat of the Axis powers was total, but it is hard to conceive of it as foregone conclusion. The appearance of the atomic bomb in the twilight of the war attests to this. Its development was accelerated in the fear that the Axis powers would get it first. If they had, the outcome of the war would have undoubtedly been very different. The Cold War that followed produced legitimate fears that this one technology could eradicate an entire country, or even the world. All and all, it was a close scrape.

     But now democracy is the prevailing form of government in virtually every Western nation. This might suggest that any threat to democracy would come from a nation without democracy. Implicit in the assumption remains the point that within the West, the battle for democracy has been decisively won.  
The prevailing view is that democracy belongs to future and not the past. It is this ideological complacency that most threatens democracy in the very places in which it is firmly established. History has clearly shown that the strongest of states and political systems are susceptible to downfall, and that the achievements of centuries can be quickly swept away. The fall of the long lasting Egyptian and Roman empires attest to this. In contrast to those empires, democracy has only been in existence for a short time. Is it possible that democratic government is only a brief diversion in the course of history?

     Perhaps the standard answer is that civilization is progressing. In this view, democracy is the next stage in human development, and once it is established the return to an older form of government is unthinkable.
This view of “progress” is highly problematic. British historian John Tosh describes the belief in progress as “the defining myth of the West.” Under this view the present is generally considered an improvement on the past and this improvement is expected to continue indefinitely. If we consider democracy as among these improvements, we can only expect that it will blossom more fully in the years to come. This view, while reassuring, could undermine the very progress it promotes, for the simple reason that it is a myth. Progress does not proceed in a straight line but rather works in fits and starts, and there is no reason to assume that what exists now is better than what existed before, nor that what will come will likewise be better than the present.

     However if we do determine that democracy is the most desirable political system that exists, we still have to question whether it is built to last. In fact democratic government possesses certain characteristics that might threaten it. It is conceivable that democracy could become a victim of its own success.
In certain Western countries like the United States it has become not a form of government but a form of civilization. This would seem to assure its continued survival since any form of government which sought to replace democracy would face a daunting task. An undemocratic movement would find itself having to justify a revolutionary program more radical than the mere substitution of one political arrangement for another would imply.

     The counterpoint to this proposition is that a democratic civilization provides many cultural accouterments which a leader or movement could wear without possessing any real democratic spirit. One can point to examples elsewhere in the world where this has happened. Japan, for instance, has in its history seen several political regimes which claimed to derive their powers entirely from the person of the Emperor – while preventing the Emperor from exercising any ruling prerogatives whatsoever. A person or movement in the United States might maintain a superficial democratic appearance sufficient enough to unravel democracy by its own consent, utilizing its own institutions.

     Democratic countries will also be vulnerable since it is a system which by its nature limits the power of the government to be assertive. As opposed to totalitarian systems in which public and private life are conflated, democratic systems maintain a strict differentiation between the two. This could threaten the life of the system in two ways. On the one hand a regime could erode democratic institutions while leaving untouched much of civil society, allowing the public to continue to live as before without noticing the change until it was too late. On the other hand it could be in private circles that an ideology might rise up which was inimical to democratic government, which free democratic institutions would be in no position to suppress without eroding the basis of their own government.

     Or perhaps democracy will simply die from weariness. It is a form of government which is conducive to self-criticism. Political parties derive their appeal from their pledges to fix what is wrong with the country. Something, therefore, is always wrong. This calls into question the effectiveness of democracy in solving problems at all. The fear as a cynicism about democracy will arise, which could cause the public to lose enthusiasm for it, even as it is free government which allows these kinds of critical conversations to take place at all.

     It is important for those who would defend democracy to consider these sobering thoughts. None of this is to say that democracy is uniquely flawed, but that all political systems are flawed and democracy is no exception. Therefore there is no reason to assume that democracy is not vulnerable and we should be comfortable in assuming that it will not exist forever. 

     But we shouldn’t be pessimistic either. Neither the survival nor the extinction of democracy is inevitable, because nothing in history is inevitable. Those who would defend democracy must recognize the threats to it, both internal and external, and be prepared to meet them. Perhaps we should keep in mind the Latin motto which was printed on regimental banners during the American Revolution:  “Exitus in dubio est” – “The outcome is in doubt.”

1. Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?*." The National Interest 1989. Web. 7 Feb. 2010. <http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm%3E.
2. Tosh, John. The Pursuit of History. Third ed. Pearson Education, 2002.
3. Richardson, Edward W. Standards and Colors of the American Revolution. University of Pennsylvania, 1982.