Fukuyama Jumped the Gun: How Dissatisfaction with Liberal Democracy as the

Dominant Ideology Led to the Rise of Populism as an Appealing Alternative

The end of the Cold War did more than just signal the end of a decades-long tension
between the two political superpowers of that era—the United States of America and the USSR
(now Russia); it has also fundamentally ended the ideological contest between the West and the
East, between Liberal Democracy and Communism. Consequently, the decline of Communism,
evident through the abolition of communist structures and establishments (also, symbolically
through the destruction of the Berlin Wall), has ultimately been called the victory of Western
Liberal Democracy.

Inspired by these events, Francis Fukuyama (1989) in his seminal work, The End of
History, asserts that the triumph of Western Liberal thought actually heralds what he calls the
‘end of history’ or specifically the ‘end of ideology’. What he means by this is that contemporary
politics might have actually arrived at its ultimate form; the absence of ideological alternatives,
therefore, lead to the inevitable conclusion that Liberal Democracy is now the global norm.
However, Fukuyama’s assertion of the ‘end of history’ and its inherent West-centric, pro-
Capitalist nature is a hasty pronouncement—especially in light of recent developments.

Although Liberal Democracy is generally an appealing ideology—and I do agree with

most of its central tenets—it is certainly not as unopposed as Fukuyama thought it would be.
This is clearly evident in the fact that there are other political regimes that remain operational
besides Western Liberal Democracies. Two specific examples of these regimes would be the
Islamic and East Asian regimes, both of which bear qualities of what Fukuyama brushed off as
unworthy contenders to the hegemony of Western thought: religion and nationalism. There is
also another thing that Fukuyama has failed to anticipate and consider, which is the increasing
dissatisfaction that Liberal Democracy has been facing as of late.

The discontent arising from the shortcomings of Liberal Democracy has led to increasing
support of populism, which has, in turn, empowered and legitimized budding and aspiring
populist authoritarian leaders and their respective illiberal regimes. This also, in a way,
invalidates Fukuyama’s pronouncement of the “end of history”, which was already dubious to
begin with. In the following sections of this essay, I shall present three main sources of popular
grievances that have furthered frustrations with Liberal Democracy and fueled populist
machineries. But before that, a brief definition of populism will be provided to specify which
theoretical framework of populism will be followed in this text.
 Populism eludes clear definitions—it has been regarded in various ways, in various
contexts. In this essay, however, we shall be working with populism as a ‘thin-centered’ ideology
(Mudd, 2004 in Aslanidis, 2016). It is considered ‘thin-centered’ because of its lack of a robust,
coherent, and consistent system of ideas (Aslanidis, 2016). Nevertheless, we shall regard it as
such given that it is an ideology that strongly opposes liberal democratic principles. And as an
ideology, it perpetuates the dichotomic view between the people and the elites, essentially
fostering an anti-elitist disposition that deepens the people’s distrust towards the government
and politicians and exacerbates their pessimism towards liberal democracy. The growing
antagonism of Liberal Democracy can be derived from three primary reasons: liberal
democracy’s failure to deliver on its economic promises, its aggressive exhortation of
globalization, and its general failure to assuage these anxieties.

Central to Liberalism is the idea of Capitalism and the free market. In theory, Capitalism
is the fairest and most moral way to pursue and achieve economic stability and financial
success—as Ayn Rand would say. The liberty to go on about one’s business as long as it is
done morally, is tolerated under this economic system, which is also supposedly advanced by
the decrease of state intervention in markets. However, this economic freedom that is espoused
by Capitalism and Liberalism does not always ensure success in the long run. Due to the
increasing economic inequality that has become pervasive, specifically in developing countries,
an individual’s prospect of breaking through economic barriers are diminished. Not only are
economic opportunities minimized in highly capitalist economies, but worker exploitation is still a
pervasive problem that is felt profoundly. The extreme income inequality and poverty contrasts
starkly against the insane, lustrous wealth that is held by the select few that perhaps best
captures the inclination of the economy towards rich elites. Another factor which contributes to
the growing inequality is the liberal push for globalization that not only impacts the economy
through the expansion of domestic markets to the global stage—which puts small, local
business owners at a disadvantage—but has also sparked cultural backlash.

Although globalization is often regarded as a positive force—thanks to the relative

economic benefits and technological innovations it brings—there have been growing sentiments
against it, specifically because of the influx of immigration that is viewed negatively for a number
of reasons. The most notable of these reasons are the belief that immigrants saturate the labor
market sector, thus stealing jobs from the locals, and the belief that immigration brings in
criminals and terrorists, thus creating an unsafe environment. Both of these reasons, however,
are categorically wrong. Yet it persists, weaponized by nationalist and populist groups to play on
the fear and insecurity that grows rampant.

The frustration that arises from economic insecurity and the anxiety that stems from
immigration are only part of the reasons why antagonism against liberal democracy continues to
escalate. The primary contributing factor to it, however, is the government’s inability to
effectively deal with these problems (Berman, 2018). This is where most disappointment,
frustration, and distrust are generated from. The government that is chosen by the people,
perhaps because of the promise of a better life, has failed time and time again. And often, the
government themselves have furthered these inequalities by focusing on their own interests,
forwarding plutocratic interests, allowing the state to be captured by the elites. It is perhaps their
own doing why populism has started to become a serious challenge to Liberal Democracy.

In conclusion, Liberal Democracy’s hegemony is rapidly waning. The inability of

governments to soothe frustrations and anxieties that arise from economic insecurity and fear of
globalization and immigration has made it conducive for populist ideas to proliferate. The
aggressive push for populist leaders has slowly eroded liberal democratic institutions that have
been perceived as ineffective. And for those who have successfully instituted a populist leader,
democratic backsliding and authoritarian regression can be observed. If no action is done to
improve how liberal democratic regimes are handled, the future of liberalism and democracy
might be put into uncertainty.

References:

Aslanidis, P. (2016). Is Populism an Ideology? A Refutation and a New Perspective. Political

Studies, 64, 88-104. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12224
Berman, S. (2018, December 23). How Liberalism Failed. Retrieved January 11, 2021, from
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/how-liberalism-failed-immigration-backlash-
illiberal-populism
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? The National Interest, (16), 3-18. Retrieved January
11, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184
Palmer, T. G. (2019, July 24). The Terrifying Rise of Authoritarian Populism. Retrieved January
11, 2021, from https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/terrifying-rise-
authoritarian-populism