Writing
soon after the rapid collapse of soviet governments in Russia and Eastern Europe
in 1989, Francis Fukuyama wrote an essay ‘The End of History’ for The National Interest journal. He argued
that the collapsed communist governments removed the existence of an
alternative to ‘western’ liberal democracy and ended the ‘point, counterpoint’ inter-state
pattern. Twenty-five years later the debate about the conflict between
communism and liberal democracy, with emphasis upon property ownership,
economic management, government and military structures does ‘feel’ very tired:
even Marx’s analysis seems empty.
If
readers agree to an extent, this writer suggests the reason for ennui with
traditional History is the failure of traditional History to acknowledge and incorporate
the massive intrusion of the cultural aspect into the dynamic of history. In
this circumstance History as political narrative is seen as hugely incomplete
almost to the place of irrelevance as sociologist as well as cultural
historians gain prominence. Yes, the old (arguably easier) History is dead. Cultural History has a far more complicated anatomy than Rankean-style national or local histories centred on state or local administrative documents.
Any
movement, such as the Islamic State, will have ‘free riders’, those who seek to
join an (ideological-based) power train but the vigour of the Islamic
expression should challenge the prudent liberal democrat to ponder the deficiencies or incompleteness of their ideology. A part response but not the full answer may reflect the contradictions
of liberalism that were identified in the 1890s. One response to the
contradictions gained expression in political ideologies in the 1920s and
1930s. Reasons for other deficiencies will be presented in later posts from our
office and may contribute to comprehension.
Contributor
Geoff Williams. Sempringham eLearning Office
