What are the biggest challenges and competitors for Liberal Democracy in the early 21st Century?

Francis Fukuyama wrote at the end of the Cold War that the Liberal Democracy ideology had triumphed over all of the other ideologies (such as monarchy after WW1, fascism after WW2, communism after the Cold War), and we were entering into the "End of History." To be clear, Liberal Democracy means not only totally free and fair elections, but also protection of civil liberties and rights.

Obviously, with 9/11/01 challenging our foreign policy and civil liberties views and the current economic crisis challenging our ideas of capitalism and the free market, we are definitely not entering into a "end of history" era.

But in the early 21st century, what are the biggest challenges and competitors for Liberal Democracy?

The world still faces many challenges: wars, extreme poverty, massive unemployment, lack of health insurance, lack of international economic regulation and product safety, illiteracy still exists, exploitation of workers (including child soldiers), racism, ethnic conflict, genocide, fanatic nationalism, religious fundamentalism, sexism, the "culture war" debate, debate over free trade agreements & globalization, risk of recession, possibility of inflation or deflation, international terrorism, international conflicts, climate change, enironmental devastation, organized crime (the drug cartels, the child sex trade), fraud, corruption, drought, famine, energy scarcity, overpopulation, possibility of a global pandemic, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation, mass migrations, failing states, massive national debts and budget deficits, etc.

Those are a lot of challenges, and there are probably still more that I didn't mention. But are there any overarching ideologies that can actually compete with Liberal Democracy?

Here are some possibilities:
-Environmentalism, shifting economic focus from "growth" to "sustainability," continuing to value democracy and civil liberties but also expanding to value labor rights and environmental protection to limit the power of the free market, and more regulations
-Authoritarian Capitalism, exactly as it sounds, with the authoritarian state providing good management of its economy, with present-day examples of this being Russia and China
-Illiberal Democracy, democracy continues to rise, but is illiberal and the state offers no protection of civil liberties, rule of the mob
-Liberal Autocracy, with no elections for state leaders, but a constitutional protection of civil liberties, with rule of law and justice
-Libertarianism, a return to totally free markets and limited government, some claiming monarchy respected private property better than any liberal democracy
-Marxism, update and return to Marxist principles to develop and new and more humane form of socialism/communism, with the state subject to individuals, emphasis on the government providing positive liberties
-Fascism, a return to individuals being subject to the state and its leaders, indicated by a rise in nationalism/patriotism and militarization of society
-Islamic Fundamentalism, a hybrid sociey where Islamic laws are supreme and enforced by the state, with a modern example of this being the Islamic Republic of Iran

Can any of these ideologies compete in the short-term or the long-term with Liberal Democracy? Are there any other possibilities?

 

Resource exhaustion and population growth will be the two biggest stories of the 21st century. I'm not sure American or European-style democracy can survive these challenges. I see a future of totlitarian environmentalist fascim or marxism aimed at keeping a nation's population at a permanently fixed number and rationing resource to achieve a steady-state economy. Regimes built around these principles will be brutal, and noble concepts like "freedom of choice" will become luxuries that no one will be able to afford as needs shift from individual utility optimization to a hive or tribal morality that discounts the value of individuals.

 

Great topic.
I tend to agree with Jabba. All those forms of government mentioned by Ghost will be a result of population growth (and mobility) and resource exhaustion.

I think this century we'll get to the point: will man be able to shape his own biosphere, or will we find out that we are bound to the current fragile balance of nature? And if so, will we be able to keep it intact?

 

Population growth is going to significantly slow down within the next couple of decades. Japan and Russia have rapidly aging populations. This is also a problem that will affect China by the 2030s, and also most of western Europe. In that sense, China's attempt to control the size of its population may come back to haunt it.

From wikipedia on the 2010s decade:

2010s source

Slowed population growth would also mean that there is less of a demand for resources. Still, not sure if it will be significant enough compared to dwindling resources.

I also think it is still WAY too early to say that authoritarian capitalism is going to succeed in China. I think we need to be patient and see if a move away from the PRC's style of government begins as more of the country is lifted out of poverty.

Also.. Brazil and India have young populations and are expected to become powerful global actors in this century. They are both democracies.

 

Keeping the education systm up and running.

 

Would be nice if you were right, but slowed population growth is still population growth so it actually means the reverse: more of a demand for resources.

 

To clarify, consumption would be less than it is at the current growth rate, which would mean we would have to alter our calculations as to how long resources will last (longer than they would at the current rate).

 

-Illiberal Democracy, democracy continues to rise, but is illiberal and the state offers no protection of civil liberties, rule of the mob

Are we talking about the future or the present?

 

The biggest challenge between now and the next election is going to be fixing the clusterfrack that is the current economic situation of the entire nation. If the Dems can't do something that at least resembles a successful fix (which I sincerely doubt the bailout will prove to be), then we'll be going back to the Republican way of doing things.

 

Isn't that problematic? Like saying that unless Chrysler can fix the design of fundamentally flawed clusterfrack Ford which doesn't start in the morning and falls apart by mid afternoon, then we'll be going back to that fundamentally flawed clusterfrack Ford? Wouldn't you rather give Chrysler a go at designing a better car?

 

Yes, but since the bailout is essentially a Dem plan, if it doesn't pan out, the "blame" will rest on the Dems in the eyes of the public. Kind of like blaming the whole war on terror on the Bush administration, when even his detractors in the Senate backed it initially. George W became the face of the situation, and his party went down with him as a result. If the bailout doesn't work, Obama will become the face of that problem, and his party will go down with him as a result. People are fickle like that, y'know.

 

At the risk of sounding optimistic, I don't really think there are any "competitors" against Liberal Democracy.

All the great challengers are dead (monarchy, fascism) or dying (Communism).

In order for me to believe that there was an ideological challenge that could possibly emerge, it would actually have to be a NEW style of government, not a mutation of proper functioning Western style democracy.

When fascism arose, we knew it. When communism arose, we knew it.

 

What population growth?

All the rich countries have sub-replacement birthrates. And, they kind of control things in this world.

As for liberal democracy, it still doesn't control huge portions of the Earth's population and land.

 

Personally I'm moving towards the belief it comes down to economics rather than anything else, and always has. And of those groups, it has to be said that capitalism is about the only system that's managed to survive through every new brainwave humanity's had for how to organise itself. I think you have to evaluate the possible models through how it'll affect capitalism for its likelihood of success over time...

-Environmentalism shifting economic focus from "growth" to "sustainability," continuing to value democracy and civil liberties but also expanding to value labor rights and environmental protection to limit the power of the free market, and more regulations

Problematic, because there's growing skepticism over whether global warming is actually taking place or whether humans are responsible for it. (Let's not turn this into a debate on that subject, guys; this is just how I see it.) Doubtful this will come to rule the 20th century, because at present the technology is not available to roll back global warming or provide an alternative economic model to capitalism. It won't be sorted unless someone solves the problem of nuclear fusion in my view.

-Authoritarian Capitalism, exactly as it sounds, with the authoritarian state providing good management of its economy, with present-day examples of this being Russia and China

Depends how you define "good management". Anyway, the entirety of Russia or China can't be described as this; if anything they're both basket cases economically except for that comparatively small portion of the population fully plugged in to western capitalism. Both are in transitional states towards capitalism, not stable systems, ergo it's unlikely this mode of government will catch on.

-Illiberal Democracy, democracy continues to rise, but is illiberal and the state offers no protection of civil liberties, rule of the mob

That's basically most of the continent of Africa at present, which has been that way more or less since Britain and the other colonial powers pulled out. I don't see Nelson Mandela saying he's got the best form of democracy on the planet, and he should know better than anyone. Doubtful this form of government will arise while the US still cleaves to the rule of law and the separation of powers concept applies as between government and the courts across the Western world. While there is still widespread obedience to the ruling of a court, this form of government is unlikely to arise, and as we've seen in Africa, does not produce the necessary stability for capitalism to work effectively.

-Liberal Autocracy, with no elections for state leaders, but a constitutional protection of civil liberties, with rule of law and justice

Interesting ... buuut necessarily won't work, because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. From one point of view this is really monarchy by another name; kings were not elected, but monarchy doesn't work as a system either -- hence the foundation of the US and the formation of a British parliament.

-Libertarianism, a return to totally free markets and limited government, some claiming monarchy respected private property better than any liberal democracy

I'd see this as the ideal, but like all ideals it won't work in practice because it relies on people not being too greedy. And the market is ultimately immoral; it relies solely on what the best prospect of profit is. Sometimes that accords with stability and legality; sometimes not. Libertarianism, as I understand it, doesn't have a totally free market anyway; it is about "Goldilocks regulation" -- not too little, not too much, but just right.

-Marxism, update and return to Marxist principles to develop and new and more humane form of socialism/communism, with the state subject to individuals, emphasis on the government providing positive liberties

Failed, because marxism doesn't have true economic incentives, and without incentives there

 

They kind of don't, NOWIS. They're kind of not relevant.
Do they control African condom distribution? Do they control the Chinese? Will they control the estimated nine billion people living here, forty years from now?

Pandemics... World Wars... Environmental catastrophes... They kind of control things. Rich countries currently don't control anything - not even their own wealth.

 

-Fascism, a return to individuals being subject to the state and its leaders, indicated by a rise in nationalism/patriotism and militarization of society

This article made me worry.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/defectors-expose-plans-of-germanys-real-nazis-1639781.html

 

With people understandably dancing a jig about the imminent end of the Castro regime in Cuba, it's important to remember that he was perhaps a much better alternative than some of the worst autocratic, fascist ******** that region has produced.

I was just reading a wonderful novel that included a history of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina, absolute ruler of the Dominican Republic for thirty years, which I think pretty accurately described him as "the dictatingest dictator who ever dictated."

His reign of terror was capped on both ends by, surprise, surprise, American invasions. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" has applied to so many awful dictators, it's easy to lose count.

At any rate, historically, one of the biggest challenges to liberal democracy has been American intervention and military adventurism abroad. It helped produce Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran and the Trujillo era in the Dominican Republic.

 

His reign of terror was capped on both ends by, surprise, surprise, American invasions. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard" has applied to so many awful dictators, it's easy to lose count.


I am more then curious what kind of government is afganistan going to have after the U.S. leaves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/former-warlord-to-fight-karzai-in-afghanistan-polls-1640164.html

Former warlord to fight Karzai in Afghanistan polls

I am goraq, i just changed my username.

 

I think the Pax Americana period is over, though -- or at least until America
(a) forgets Iraq; or
(b) drastically alters the way its army functions to combat guerrilla forces.

Reading the military articles of Jack Reed suggests to me (b) is never going to happen, and as I've indicated before, Obama by his behaviour seems to be turning out as an isolationist. He's getting out of Iraq; he will be getting out of Afghanistan, he just has to soften up the electorate for it first. Anyone who suggests dealing with "moderate elements" of the Taliban is basically talking about a troop withdrawal in the not-too-distant future.

Having said that, I actually agree with Jabba on this; because America is basically retracting the fist around the world right at the moment, liberal democracy in theory has a better chance of coming about in "tipping point" countries than not. This is because Hollywood, American pop culture, and American capitalism are actually far more effective conquerors of nations than their armies have been for the past fifty years or so. When you're watching "Titanic", James Dean, or Sex and the City you're being fed the American dream and want that -- or to be like that. It comes down to a simple question that the rational, silent majority in any semi-educated country ask: why can't I have that? What's stopping me? Much more effective a conqueror than a GI Joe with a rifle watching over your kids.

They kind of don't, NOWIS. They're kind of not relevant.

I disagree on this one. When the richest countries on the planet control upwards of 80 percent of the world's natural resources, you are necessarily relevant.

Do they control African condom distribution?

By default, given until recently dumb Christian missionaries from the West were preaching that condoms were a sin. And Africa doesn't make condoms; the West does.

Do they control the Chinese?

By default, or at least the relationship is symbiotic rather than the Chinese being independent of control. All those cheap plasma TVs and DVD players would be sitting on docks in Shanghai and Hong Kong without a US and Western market to sell them to. China's economy is half in the toilet right now simply because the West's economy is already down the S-bend.

Will they control the estimated nine billion people living here, forty years from now?

Again, by default, yes.

 

I meant that they don't control things in the population department.
And they don't; they can't just tell half of the people to stop breeding.

 

(b) drastically alters the way its army functions to combat guerrilla forces.


How?

 

Given that I'm a member of the US Army, and specifically a light-infantryman who trains in guerrilla warfare, I'll answer that.

The US Army is superb at offensive maneuver warfare because that's what big armies do: use firepower and maneuver to defeat similarly-equipped enemies. Prior to the Iraq war, the only part of the army that gave much thought to guerrilla warfare were the light-infantry and Special Forces communities, because that's what our focus is and it's also how we fight-we don't have the firepower to say, take on a Russian tank division head-on, so we have to defeat it through other means.

Until the Iraq occupation, this worked out well enough, as we haven't occupied a country since Vietnam-what guerrilla warfare there was to deal with was more than covered by the 4 light infantry divisions (about forty thousand guys) and Special Operations Command (about the same amount). Now, however, with 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq and more in Afghanistan, it's more a question of transferring skills from the above-mentioned communities to the entire Army, which we're currently in the process of doing through revised training.

 

-Liberal Autocracy, with no elections for state leaders, but a constitutional protection of civil liberties, with rule of law and justice

How about liberal oligarchy? You can do almost anithing you can now just without elections and oligarchs ,,making deals" with their citizens?

Is what i wrote a political oxymoron?

 

Or it could be the re-emergence of an older ideology.

Authoritorian Capitalism is basically Mercantilism, which was the ruling odeology of Europe until Great Britain started the push for free trade in the middle of the 19th Century, and only briefly re-emerged sicne then with the protectionist policies during the Great Depression. There is a very real chance that we could slide back into Mercantilism today, even if nobody calls it that.

Environmentalism isn't just about global warming, it's about achieivng harmony between society and its natural environment. Which includes things like better disposal and recycling of waste, preventing and cleaning pollution, wildlife protection, animal rights, conserving natural parks, protecting the cleanliness of common property such as air and water, efficient management of renewable and non-renewable resources, contributing back to nature, preventing natural disasters, building a more "green" infrastructure and housing, etc.

Deep ecologism even goes as far as to say that the environment doesn't exist to sustain humanity, but humanity exists to sustain the environment!

I think a mix of Environmentalism with Liberal Democracy, and maybe some Socialism, is most likely to become the dominant competitor to pure Capitalistic Liberal Democracy, and become the overwhelimg trend of the 21st century. Bu that is my opinion.

They are both developing their economies, not on the level of U.S. or Europe, but they are getting there and they do not need to transition comletely into Capitalism. Like I said above, this is really the rebirth of Mercantilism and protectionism.

 

With China and the U.S. both trying to jumstart international negotiations on how to deal with climate change, before the official summit in Copenhagen this winter, it seems like the entire world is definitely moving towards a greater ideological (and pragmatic) focus on environmentalism.

But is this just another challenge for Liberal Democracy and its competitors to take into account, just another step in the evolution of these ideologies, or is Environmentalism (Green Democracy) a genuine competitor/threat to Liberal Democracy in the 21st Century?

Has anybody thought of any more possible challenges/competitors for Liberal Democracy in the present, or even in the future?

The main powers of the 21st Century are shaping up to be: America, China, India, Russia, Europe, Brazil, Indonesia. What does this say about how Liberal Democracy, and ideological systems in general, could evolve and be challenged in the 21st Century?