The Democratic Paradox

After recently re-watching Sabrina (starring Audrey Hepburn in her second major role, after Roman Holiday) and The Pianist (by the ever-controversial Roman Polanski), I’ve found myself thinking about the relationship between America’s government (democracy), economy (capitalism), and prosperity.Francis Fukuyama – the author of a post-Cold War theory (summary of theory, Fukuyama’s article) of international relations in contradiction to Huntington’s theory – claims that the relationship between these variables (democracy, capitalism, prosperity) is reciprocal. Further, Fukuyama says all countries that accept both democracy and capitalism – what Fukuyama calls states “at the end of history” – are bound to peaceful interaction with one another. Fukuyama predicts that conflict will only occur within countries that have not accepted the former two principles – what Fukuyama calls states “in history”, and may draw states ‘at the end of history’ into these conflicts.

In other words, according to Fukuyama, the problem in international relations is that not all states have accepted the tradition of Western liberal democracy and free-market economy. All conflict stems from this problem. In an attempt to disprove this theory, I’d like to consider: what is so bad about Western liberal democracy? Do we not have freedom of speech and worship, freedom from fear and want? (Norman Rockwell’s WWII US propaganda to this effect shown below).

At the time – after WWII – these were the promises of democracy. In my opinion, these promises still hold true, but the democracies we have established and executed so far have fallen short of these promises and have more work to do. This potential – to perfect representative democracy – may need more socialist-inspired programs (whose supporters are often called “social democrats” to distinguish between individuals’ social and fiscal policy preferences) to be accomplished. I also believe that in order for this potential to be reached, actors in the international community must become (more) open to the cultures and values of one another. Currently, we still racially profile Americans as security threats for “national security,” and we have certainly not provided freedom from want or fear for all Americans.

However, I still do believe that the Western ideological state Fukuyama describes as “at the end of history” constitute the best current demonstrations of democracy, and that democracy has been the best ideological system introduced to the international community – as of yet. I’d like to end, then, by quoting an exchange from Sabrina that embodies the benefits of this system, as well as demonstrates some of Tickner’s (discussed in my post on Women & Civil Society) criticisms of the way we look at International Relations:

Linus: Making money isn’t the main point of business. Money is a by-product.
David: What’s the main objective? Power?
Linus: Ah! That’s become a dirty word.
David: What’s the urge? You’re going into plastics. What will that prove?
Linus: Prove? Nothing much. A new product has been found, something of use to the world. A new industry moves into an undeveloped area. Factories go up, machines go in and you’re in business. It’s coincidental that people who’ve never seen a dime now have a dollar and barefooted kids wear shoes and have their faces washed. What’s wrong with an urge that gives people libraries, hospitals, baseball diamonds and movies on a Saturday night?