The revenge of history
Autocratic forms
of governance have come back with vengeance and the traditional concepts of sovereignty and the inviolability of national borders are being resurrected by nationalist strongmen
Hisham Melhem
More than 25 years ago, political scientist Francis Fukuyama boldly proclaimed the end of history and the triumph of Western liberal capitalist democracy, as the final form of political development and human governance. The end of history, according to Fukuyama, did not mean that history will end, but that liberal democracy will always re-assert itself as the highest form of governance. Globalisation is here to stay. The traditional concept of state sovereignty would give way to new forms of economic, political, legal and even cultural forms of international integrations. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, led many in the West to believe that soft power would eclipse hard power. It was believed by some in this supposedly brave new world, increasingly fueled by trade liberalisation and widening respect for the rule of law, that diplomacy will settle whats left of the international disputes and regional crises.
Alas, good old-fashioned history proved to be tenacious, autocratic forms of governance have come back with vengeance and the traditional concepts of sovereignty and the inviolability of national borders are being resurrected by nationalist strongmen. Since the beginning of the new century, liberalism has been in retreat in Europe, particularly in Hungary, Turkey and Greece. In Syria, Yemen and Libya the uprisings succumbed to the forces of religious atavism and sectarianism and entrenched traditional social and economic interests plunging these brittle societies in civil strife, and regional proxy wars.
There is an assertion that economic progress and accumulation of wealth will inevitably bring in its wake political liberalism. Even in those countries where liberal democracy was on the ascendancy, like the United States, its promise of economic prosperity was not inclusive, as we have seen in the increased numbers of the unemployed and underemployed and others who were economically marginalised by globalisation, income inequality and the widening gap between rich and poor. Donald Trump cynically and effectively rode this wave of American discontent to the White House, becoming our first illiberal president.In the second decade of the 21st century we are seeing that history did not end, that liberal democracy is on the defensive and that for the first time since the end of the Second World War, a Eurasian power, Russia has dismembered a major European country the Ukraine, by force of arms, with little punitive consequences. Old-fashioned geopolitical power plays are on full display from Crimea on the Black Sea to the disputed waters and islands of the South China Sea. The ideals that were at the core of the European Union, like open borders, economic integration, assimilating immigrants and refugees, are being assaulted by rising autocratic tendencies and the growth of nationalist parties. The Brexit vote in Britain was a clear manifestation of the revenge of history.
Even in the United States, the rise of Trump Nation reflects the emergence of a crude form of nativism and narrow nationalism that is suspicious of trade liberalisation and hostile to immigrants, refugees and Muslims. There is more than a whiff of bigotry and chauvinism in Donald Trumps views of America and the world.
There are many international and domestic reasons that explain the rise of autocrats like Vladimir Putinand Recep Tayyip Erdogan, including economic downturns, the negative impact of globalisation, the concern over the influence of the digital revolution and the fear that dissidents and their international supporters could use it against their entrenched power. However, Americas lacklustre leadership role in the world since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is one of the main reasons that explains the impunity with which Russia continues its total disregard of international law in the Ukraine and its obscene war crimes against the Syrian people. In fact, Americas diplomacy during the Obama administration all but ceded to Russia the leading role in the management of the war and the political machinations in Syria. The Trump administration contrary to its public claims is following the same policy. Iran has been rampaging in Syria and Iraq for years and successfully diminishing American influence in the two countries. The administration of George W Bush could only voice its objection to North Koreas first nuclear test in 2006, because America was stuck then in the two longest wars in its history. The Obama administrations aversion to conflict led to the adoption of the pacifist concept of strategic patience in dealing with the threat posed by North Korea, which allowed Pyongyang to conduct four additional nuclear tests with impunity. The same could be said about the overall timid US response to Chinas aggressive military moves in the South China Sea, even after the international tribunal at The Hague had issued a ruling rejecting Chinas claims to the territorial waters of the Philippines an old American ally. Vladimir Putin sees himself as the saviour of the old realm, the restorer of Russias fading imperial legacy and the centrality of the Orthodox Church in Russias life. But for those who live uncomfortably in the shadow of Russia from the Baltic States to the Ukraine and all the way to Georgia, Putin is the prince of darkness.
The writer is a columnist for the Lebanese daily Annahar and a non-resident fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington
