Only registered users can comment.

  1. A Republic which contains all 3 of the Good forms of Government (Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy) which Today is 3 Branches of Government Presidency, Legislature, Judicial.

  2. Clearly, Fukuyama's theory still stands tall. I agree with him that the China-model comes closest as a rival. Nevertheless, we shouldn't forget that China is still a developing nation with a newly-formed middle class. In the end, it is hard to see how, when educational and living standards rise, these people can continue to be shut out from government and political freedom. In other words, authoritarianism might be, or probably is, a better model for countries that have not yet reached full development, but only under those conditions. Another great point by Fukuyama with which I agree is that the possibly biggest global issue is not the transition from autocracy or authoritarianism to democracy, but from feeble, what he calls "(neo)patrimonial states" to democracies.

    Also, concerning the quite agitated remark from the Muslim woman in the public, I have no clue as to what kind of countries she has in mind that are doing well under Islamic regimes. Fukuyama, in his response to her, mentions Indonesia and Turkey as supposedly "more enlightened" or prospering states following an Islamic model. Yet it is precisely in these countries that the Islamic element is hurting democratic, liberal culture, the growing power of Erdogan and his imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people and limiting of press freedom as well as the deposing of the immensely successful Indonesian Christian governor of Jogyakarta "Ahok" (that's his name) are cases in point. In sum, I think Fukuyama is right to say that not a single country on earth that follows the Islamic model (whether full theocracy like Iran or a kind of sharia-infused and Islam-dominated society) is a very attractive place to live in, unless of course you have been raised or converted under the spell of Islam to begin with.

  3. Me thinks Prof. Fukuyama doesn't truly understand Chinese history or its peoples. He is too well indoctrinated with the Western Liberal Democracy "narrative".

  4. How about Plato's philosopher kings or an intellectual government that can be a great alternative to democracy.

  5. 55:44 "The alternative to democracy is an authoritarian regime" Actually, colocracy is a representative non-authoritarian system of appointment, free from party politics, patronage, clientelism, pork barrelling and all the other dirty laundry that electoral democracy carries with it and it guarantees a legislature that mirrors the constituency.

  6. This is a profound discussion on alternatives to democracy ,thank you for the organizers Cornell University people.

  7. This comment section is overflowing with emotionally driven pseudo intellectuals. how many do you think graduated from Harvard like Fukuyama?

  8. There is nothing wrong with democracy what needs to be done is strict acountability and laws that restrict the ability of leaders who manipulate the system for greed and unlawful exercise of power

  9. More and more China's unique model will achieve further success above all others, based on Prof. Fukuyama's theory.
    Prof. Mearsheimer then describes aggressor America's trapped liberal democracy under unconstrained capitalism will
    limber along, or decline.

  10. Alternatives to democracy… We have been there shit like this triggers me hard. Oppinions form one sided econonerds, which is a pseudoscience anyhow.
    Fukuyama is pretty much the worst neoliberal on the planet. You dont get that productivity does not solve soft philosophical issues.
    Just saying we are producing more shit than ever does not mean the world is a better place. Capitalism is completly agnostic to anything else than capital…

    Feudalism 2.0 is where this is going. And thinking there is an end of history is the most ignorant economic bullshit ever not understanding infinite games. I suggest the audiobook "qualityland". Meanwhile lets sing:"Money Money über alles, über alles in der Welt".

  11. "The fact is that sometimes people do like authoritarian states." Yes, especially when they will be imprisoned, tortured, and potentially executed if they don't "like" them. Mearsheimer, what a guy.

  12. Political systems do not remain static and remain the same 60 hence or longer. Systems will change according to the needs of the population. China and India with huge populations have great problems moving their people in the direction they want. Even if the change is people directed, it is very difficult for more than 1 billion people to move by themselves in the direction they want. How is that possible. 1 billion people will have a few million ideas and also a few thousand leaders who want to lead.

  13. The idea put forward around the one hour mark that liberal democracies are naturally warlike, cases in point being the US and Great Britain, is so wrongheaded and intellectually lazy it makes my head hurt. How about looking at the military industrial complex of the US as a potential driver of war? How about the world economy's addiction to petroleum as an energy source? What about the special relationship between the US and GB formed during WWII?

    Look at the widespread demonstrations against and condemnation of the Iraq war around the world at the time of its outbreak: what kind of society allows for such outspoken criticism if not a liberal democracy?

  14. Even the whole world is democracy there'll be still wars. Even the whole world is authoritarian there'll be still war. Because we have seen wars amongst the democracy and also between the authoritarian, rights?

  15. The worldly intelligence is in definition. It's not what the rights are, it is who's rights. To understand go to the preacher of god.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *