Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[citizen k]

Interview with Fukuyama:

Author Francis Fukuyama spoke with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels on Tuesday, Oct. 20.

Nathan Gardels: In 1989, you wrote an essay, later developed into a book, that stated your famous "end of history" thesis. You said then:

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

What mostly holds up in your thesis 20 years on? What doesn't? What changed?

Francis Fukuyama: The basic point – that liberal democracy is the final form of government – is still basically right. Obviously there are alternatives out there, like the Islamic Republic of Iran or Chinese authoritarianism. But I don't think that all that many people are persuaded these are higher forms of civilization than what exists in Europe, the United States, Japan, or other developed democracies; societies that provide their citizens with a higher level of prosperity and personal freedom.

The issue is not whether liberal democracy is a perfect system, or whether capitalism doesn't have problems. After all, we've been thrown into this huge global recession because of the failure of unregulated markets. The real question is whether any other system of governance has emerged in the last 20 years that challenges this. The answer remains no.

Now, that essay was written in the winter of 1988 or '89 just before the fall of the Berlin Wall. I wrote it then because I thought that the pessimism about civilization that we had developed as a result of the terrible 20th century, with its genocides, gulags, and world wars, was actually not the whole picture at all. In fact, there were a lot of positive trends going on in the world, including the spread of democracy where there had been dictatorship. Sam Huntington called this "the third wave."

It began in southern Europe in the 1970s with Spain and Portugal turning to democracy. Then – and later – you had an ending of virtually all the dictatorships in Latin America, except for Cuba. And then there was the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the opening of Eastern Europe. Beyond that, democracy displaced authoritarian regimes in South Korea and Taiwan. We went from 80 democracies in the early 1970s to 130, or 140, 20 years later.

Of course, this hasn't all held up since then. We see today a kind of democratic recession. There have been reversals in important countries like Russia, where we see the return of a nasty authoritarian system without rule of law, or in Venezuela and some other Latin American countries with populist regimes.

Clearly, that big surge toward democracy went as far as it could. Now there is a backlash against it in some places. But that doesn't mean the larger trend is not still toward democracy.

Gardels: The main contending argument against the "end of history" was offered by Sam Huntington. Far from ideological convergence, he argued, we were facing a "clash of civilizations" in which culture and religion would be the main points of conflict after the cold war. For many, 9/11 and its aftermath confirmed his thesis of a clash between Islam and the West. To what extent was his argument valid?

Fukuyama: The differences between Huntington and I have been somewhat overstated. I wrote a book called "Trust" in which I argue that culture is one of the key factors that determines economic success and the possibilities of prosperity. So I don't deny the critical role of culture. But, overall, the question is whether cultural characteristics are so rooted that there is no chance of universal values or a convergence of values. That is where I disagree.

Huntington's argument was that democracy, individualism, and human rights are not universal, but reflections of culture rooted in Western Christendom. While that is true historically, these values have grown beyond their origins. They've been adopted by societies that come out of very different cultural traditions. Look at Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Indonesia.

Societies rooted in different cultural origins come to accept these values not because the US does it, but because it works for them. It provides a mechanism for government accountability. It provides societies with a way to get rid of bad leaders when things go wrong. That is a huge advantage of democratic societies that someplace like China doesn't have. China, at the moment, is blessed with competent leaders. But before that they had Mao. There is nothing to prevent another Mao in the future without some form of democratic accountability.

Problems of corruption or poor governance are much easier to solve if you have a democracy. For enduring prosperity and success, institutionalized, legal mechanisms of change and accountability are essential.

Gardels: In an earlier book, "Political Order in Changing Societies," Huntington argued that Westernization and modernization were not identical. He thought modernization – an effective state, urbanization, breakdown of primary kinship groups, inclusive levels of education, market economies, and a growing middle class – were quite possible without a society becoming Western in terms of a liberal secular culture or democratic norms.

We see this today from Singapore to China, from Turkey to Malaysia and even Iran. Any observant visitor to China these days can see that beneath the logos of Hyatt and Citigroup the soul of old Confucius is stirring, with its authoritarian bent. In Turkey, we see an Islamist-rooted party running a secular state, battling to allow women to wear head scarves in public universities.

In other words, isn't "non-Western modernization" as likely a path ahead as Westernization through globalization?

Fukuyama: For me, there are three key components of political modernization. First, the modernization of the state as a stable, effective, impersonal institution that can enforce rules across complex societies. This was Huntington's focus. But there are two other components of modernization in my view. Second, the rule of law so that the state itself is constrained in its actions by a preexisting body of law that is sovereign. In other words, a ruler or ruling party cannot just do whatever he or it decides. Third is some form of accountability of the powers that be.

Huntington would have said that rule of law and accountability are Western values. I think they are values toward which non-Western societies are converging because of their own experience. You can't have true modernization without them. They are in fact necessary complements to each other. If you have just political modernization defined as a competent state, you may only have a more effective form of tyranny.

What you can certainly have is effective state building and a certain amount of prosperity under authoritarian conditions for a time. That is what the Chinese are doing right now. But I am convinced that their prosperity cannot in the end endure, nor can Chinese citizens ever be secure in their personal progress, without the rule of law and accountability. They can't go to the next stage without all three components that comprise modernization. Corruption and questionable legitimacy will ultimately weigh them down, if not open unrest.

Gardels: Modernization has usually also meant the growing secularization of society and the primacy of science and reason. Yet, in a place like Turkey today, as I mentioned, we see modernization and growing religiosity side by side. That certainly departs from the Western-oriented trajectory charted by Ataturk.

Fukuyama: I agree. The old version of the idea of modernization was Euro-centric, reflecting Europe's own development. That did contain attributes which sought to define modernization in a quite narrow way. Most importantly, as you point out, religion and modernization certainly can coexist. Secularism is not a condition of modernity. You don't have to travel to Turkey to see that. It is true in the United States, which is a very religious society but in which advanced science and technological innovation thrive.

The old assumption that religion would disappear and be replaced solely by secular, scientific rationalism is not going to happen.

At the same time, I don't believe the existence, or even prevalence of cultural attributes, including religion, are so overwhelming anywhere that you will not see a universal convergence toward rule of law and accountability.

Gardels: Still, must accountability entail the same democratic, electoral norms of Europe or the United States?

Fukuyama: You can have nonelectoral accountability through moral education, which forges a sense of moral obligation by the ruler. Traditional Confucianism, after all, taught the emperor that he had a duty to his subjects as well as himself. It is not an accident that the most successful authoritarian modernization experiments have all been in East Asian societies touched by Confucianism.

In the end, though, that is not enough. You cannot solve the problem of the "bad emperor" through moral suasion. And China has had some pretty bad emperors over the centuries. Without procedural accountability, you can never establish real accountability.

Gardels: Some top Chinese intellectuals today argue that when China arises again as the superior civilization in a post-American world, the "tired" global debate over autocracy versus democracy will yield to a more pragmatic debate over good governance versus bad governance. I doubt you would agree.

Fukuyama: You are right, I don't believe that. You simply can't get good governance without democratic accountability. It is a risky illusion to believe otherwise.

[Alatriste]

Good article, but I think they are wrong: If we define modernity as a combination of three factors, effective state, rule of law and democratic accountability ( a quite good definition IMHO) then secularism is a condition of modernity.

Without secularism

- Freedom of expression is impossible, and without freedom of expression democracy is impossible too.

-  True rule of law becomes unlikely - to say the least - since there is a religious set of rules (a "higher law") that competes... unless laws are submitted to religious supervision & approval, and then democracy becomes a sham, a fig leaf for theocracy.

In short, religion implies an eternal status quo with a immutable set of rules and a non democratic ruling body. That's not compatible with any kind of democracy unless religion is expelled from public businesses and reduced to a private matter, i.e. secularism.

In another order of things I think the article is quite right regarding China. You can have a competently ruled tyranny for a time, trouble comes when an incompetent or a group of them reaches power and can't be removed without bloodshed. In China they can have an effective state, and even rule of law of a sort trough Confucianism, but solving the problem of accountability without democracy is far more difficult... the history of the USSR says it all in this aspect, really.

But regarding Turkey I think their opinion is completely wrong. In Turkey we are seeing exactly the opposite process. Turkey has an effective state, rule of law and democracy, and in consequence even when an Islamist (moderate) party reaches power it is reduced to things like trying to make legal wearing scarves in universities. Hardly an Iranian style revolution... and now that I mention Iran, that country is a perfect example of what I'm saying: even with formal democracy religious supervision means that the state is not truly effective, rule of law is shaky or non existent, and democracy is a bad joke.

[Monoriu]

I bet someone said that the monarchy form of government was the endpoint of human ideological evolution during the age of kings and emperors. 

Who knows.  The next era could be dominated by Mircosoft, corporations, direct democracy, or Goldman Sachs.  Or maybe we could see the Rise of the Machines. 

[Viking]

Modern democratic free market societies pay lip service to religion and philosophy and the ideas of illiterate goat herders.

Modern society is NOT a society that has modern amenities, but rather a society which can invent and produce those amenities should the knowledge of them be lost.

Saudi Arabia has clean water, mobile phones, an efficient oil industry etc.etc. but it cannot be considered a modern society by any means.

[The Brain]

The US is a modern society.

I will repeat what I posted once before regarding state/religion:

Europe is a moderate drinker. America is a sober alcoholic.

They both work reasonably well.

[Alatriste]

The US is a modern society.

Well, about the modernity of the US...

Effective State? Check.
Rule of the Law? Check.
Democratic Accountability? Check.

On secularism, few people would disagree if we say Europe is more secular than the US, but in spite of the usual religious rhetoric and the best efforts of creationists and other fundamentalists America is secular too, only less so.

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.

[Pat]

Secularism is not a condition of modernity. You don't have to travel to Turkey to see that. It is true in the United States, which is a very religious society but in which advanced science and technological innovation thrive.

This summer I travelled in SE Asia, visiting Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines and Timor-Leste. In Manila I checked in to a hotel in the area preferred by tourists, "one of the safer areas of the city" according to my Lonely Planet guidebook. I guess it took about five minutes before the first pick-pocket attempt, and it wasn't long until the next one. Then I was swarmed by street children in a narrow passage, forcing me to use mild violence to make myself loose to allow me to run away. So I decided to keep myself to city's many malls, mostly the Mall of Asia which is the fourth largest mall in the world, but still only the second largest in Manila. There I purveyed the book stores to acquaint myself with Filipino history and literature (I can especially recommend Nick Joaquin's "Culture and History" if anyone's interested).

The impression I got was of a culture who thought themselves better and more western than their neighbours on account of being Asia's only christian country. They see christianity as dominating the world, and look to America for inspiration. They do not realize that western civilization only flourished when looking elsewhere than christianity for inspiration, for example by rediscovering ancient pre-christian ideals, thus ending the dark ages when christianity had lay itself like a wet blanket over the minds of all. They take their religion very seriously and because they are catholic, and they do not use contraceptives, this means over-population and massive malthusian poverty. Manila had the worst poverty I have seen not only in SE Asia but anywhere - worse, even, than the time I was given a tour of the slums of Bombay by a sikh taxi driver who wanted to show the spoiled westerner how bad some people have it. To give you one example, garbage is carried down-river from the interior of Luzon and is then thrown back by the waves along the docks of Manila, where it gathers in thick layers, so thick, in fact, that it keeps small children buoyant as they quite literally walk on the water scavenging the trash.

It's true that America is a very religious society that is also scientifically advanced. It's also true that 93% of American National Academy of Sciences members do not belive in god. This in a very religious country. America has managed to become scientifically advanced despite being a religious country, but while America is large and pluralistic enough to produce rational scientists despite being a country largely composed of backward irrational believers in bronze-age myths, that does not mean all countries are. It is because backward countries do not abandon their backward ways that they are backward, and they need to be told this.

[Valmy]

Well we may be "religious" there are many many many different religions and sects in the US and we rarely agree with each other.  That is dramatically different than what people usually mean by a religious society where there is a church who dominates public policy.

[Viking]

Well we may be "religious" there are many many many different religions and sects in the US and we rarely agree with each other.  That is dramatically different than what people usually mean by a religious society where there is a church who dominates public policy.

The way religion works in the west and other modern and secular states is that religion really represents a suspension of normal critical reasoning. You can be a scientist studying evolution or the big bang or building a model of abiogenesis and then go to church on sunday. The reason this works is that for most of the society treats religion as a solution to the specific problem of being moral and achieving heavens reward. Religion has in effect surrendered the issue of material truth, and focussed on the issue of spiritual truth (which can't be disproven).

So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State. 

[Valmy]

The way religion works in the west and other modern and secular states is that religion really represents a suspension of normal critical reasoning.

Well I certainly noticed critical reasoning being pretty rare over here but I never connected it to religion before.  Languish must be a pretty religious place.

[Viking]

The way religion works in the west and other modern and secular states is that religion really represents a suspension of normal critical reasoning.

Well I certainly noticed critical reasoning being pretty rare over here but I never connected it to religion before.  Languish must be a pretty religious place.

I suspect that in addition to religion there are many other means of suspension of reason.

[Neil]

So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State.

The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright.  England in particular.

[grumbler]

The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright.  England in particular.

True. Once you separate religion and the church, the church can co-exist alongside the state quite well.  Religion is the problem, not the church.

[Neil]

The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright.  England in particular.

True. Once you separate religion and the church, the church can co-exist alongside the state quite well.  Religion is the problem, not the church.

Historically, the Church of England has tended towards being a religion, and in some parts of the world it remains as such.

[Viking]

So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State.

The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright.  England in particular.

First, the power relationship is all one way, the government rules the church, period. So liberal and socialist governments will impose gay marriage, acceptance of abortion etc.etc. on the churches. The CofE and the Scandinavian Lutheran churches are by no means energetic, or full.

Second, these churches have independence with the exception of the periodic intervention by the government. But most importantly all of these state churches are in favour of separation and their justification for being is to keep religion sane and keeping the fundies from running all the churches.