Plea For Modified Liberalism

Francis Fukuyama, in his book “The End of History and the Last Man,” proclaimed liberalism as the ‘endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution.’ This claim seemed justified following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, subsequent events like the 2008 global financial crisis, the rise of populism, and various religious and identity conflicts have raised a serious question over liberalism’s ability to address modern societal problems. Consequently, it faces ideological challenges and harsh criticism from both the political left and right.

Fukuyama’s slim and elegant book, “Liberalism and Its Discontents,” serves as a defense of classical liberalism against its contemporary critics. He regards liberalism as a doctrine that emerged after the European religious wars of the 17th century, founded on individual liberty, autonomy, and tolerance. Politically, when coupled with democracy, it proved to be the most effective system for governing sovereign individuals.

Liberalism faces harsh criticism from both sides: neo-liberals (on the right) and acolytes of identity politics (on the left). However, it is from the left that more serious and intellectual challenges come. Thatcher and Regan forwarded the idea of a free market, privatised economy and deregulated financial sector, which was later termed as neo-liberalism. This concept boomed economic growth at the cost of increased inequality and uneven distribution. Fukuyama argues that, having been challenged by neo-liberalism, liberalism began to erode its main premise of tolerance and evolved into modern identity politics. He accepts that “Liberalism has been in retreat in recent years”.   

Indeed, liberalism has not lived up to its own ideals. Evidence suggests that individual rights and civil liberties have been declining in the modern world. Freedom of expression 

and the right to privacy are threatened by technological innovation and the rise of the digital age. 

The threat to freedom of expression comes both from government and private control over media and other means of communication. The internet prioritizes sensationalism over other types of careful vetting of information. Vast amounts of private data and information are concentrated in the hands of a few gigantic tech companies making them immensely powerful. This decline has fueled social tension, promoting the rise of right-wing populism. 

The critics from religious right hold liberalism responsible for the spiritual vacuum by creating selfish, asocial and materialistic individuals. Similarly, it undermined nationalism by promoting the concept of individualism and global citizenship. 

Furthermore, liberalism faces criticism from postmodern critical thinkers such as Foucault regarding its association with “objective scientific reality”. They maintain that existing system is not neutral and is designed to benefit the rich and powerful. 

Liberalism has been inadequate to solve the problems of the modern times. Though paired up with democracy, major decisions affecting people’s lives are taken by judges and bureaucrats who are not elected. Liberal society is essentially consumerist and does not provide a strong sense of community bonding. Moreover, it is not diverse enough to care about social and distributive justice. This system is dominated by manipulative elites who do not respond to the wishes of ordinary people. Furthermore, it is too permissive and disrespects traditional religious values.

Despite its flaws, Fukuyama believes that liberalism is the best available system when carefully re-examined and revised. There certainly are alternatives to liberalism but they are not capable of governing diverse and pluralistic society in peaceful manner. Similarly, these alternatives do not possess an inherent quality for self-correction that liberalism does. Fukuyama provides three justifications for liberalism. First, the pragmatic justification asserts that liberalism enhances peace and adopts diversity and plurality. Second, morally, it protects autonomy, dignity and liberty of the individual. Finally, economically, freedom of contract and protection of property rights lead to material benefits ultimately resulting in prosperity and economic growth.  

After such an in-depth exploration of problems, Fukuyama’s proposal for reviving liberalism sounds boring and uninspiring. He proposes that liberals should revive their views on rationality and cognition. They should take federalism more seriously and devolve power to the lowest appropriate levels of government, which would uphold diversity and the right to self-determination. There is an urgent necessity to focus on group rights rather than the rights of individuals. Fukuyama further advises increasing the quality of government by protecting civil liberties such as privacy, autonomy, and freedom of speech and expression, with an appropriate understanding of the limits of speech. 

The author suggests focusing not only on economic development but also on promoting economic and wealth equality. Fukuyama’s assertion that there is no alternative to liberalism is heavily criticised as a biased defense of the status quo. Critics note that this restrictive conclusion has limited the potential for political and philosophical evolution. This conclusion is flawed because it overlooks the potential alternatives offered by China, Russia and other socialist countries.

 The rising frustration in liberal states, such as the Generation Z revolts, suggests that people are searching for an alternative to the liberal system. In this context, Fukuyama’s denial of alternative possibility appears notably biased and shortsighted. The book offers a concise defense of classical liberalism, beginning with its historical and philosophical roots. The book excels at accurate problem identification and diagnosis but falls short of offering concrete and valuable solutions. The offered solution of “moderated liberalism” seems insufficient to solve the diverse challenges liberalism is facing today. 

(Neupane is an advocate.)