Francis Fukuyama: "The contempt of the elite is dangerous, each society needs elites"

He became a kind of academic celebrity by announcing, 30 years ago, "The end of history", claiming that the world had found its most reasonable form of social organization: liberal democracy accompanied by free market.

But times have changed. Today & # 39; hui,
Francis Fukuyama go with worry
the advance of the extreme right, nationalism and populism, and addresses these issues in his latest book: "Identity: Demands for Dignity and Resentment Policies".

In this conversation with BBC Mundo in Chile, the academic explains how authoritarian or apolitical leaders have better connected with the working clbad than left-wing movements, and why some traditionally dominant groups, such as whites

United States

today they claim a condition of "victims".

– "The end of history" posited that liberal democracy, accompanied by the free market, was the only reasonable political option and was considered a powerful defender of these. How has your political perspective changed in recent years?

"Well, I'm still a supporter of liberal democracy and free markets, but I think in many ways I've gone left for two good reasons, I think in the 2000s the two biggest Disasters were first the invasion of Iraq by the United States, then the financial crisis, and both were the byproduct of conservative ideas pushed to the Extreme and leading to very poor results, which required rethinking. "

"I also think that globalization in general has been very effective in many ways, in terms of reducing poverty in many parts of the world, but it has also created a higher level of inequality in many countries. , including the US, remedy, and I think that's probably what the left offers better than the right today. "

But if Fukuyama, in his own words, moved to the left, it was not the same for large groups of voters in the United States, as evidenced by the choice of a businessman as

Donald Trump

in the United States, or the electoral advance in Europe of personalities who bet on nationalism and against socialism and social democracy.

The academic explains through different factors:

"One of them was that the left was starting to define inequality differently: in the 20th century, inequality was perceived as the victimization of a large group of people, the proletariat or the working clbad, but over time, the left began to focus on specific groups facing specific forms of injustice: racial minorities, ethnic minorities, women, LGBT people, I think that in doing so they have begun to lose touch with working-clbad people. "

"That's why I think that after the financial crisis of 2008, when the support for left-wing populism should have increased, we have instead obtained a right-wing populism whose discourse better explained the economic situation of the middle clbad, declaring :, for example, that the elite, allowing high levels of immigration, conspired to pull him out of his job.

-You relate this phenomenon to the sense of identity: it is written that people want and should be seen, in the first place, as equals, but that the same need can become a desire to be perceived as superior. How is this process going?

"I think it's kind of a natural tendency, we all want to be recognized as equals and we're very angry if we're considered inferior to others, but that quickly translates into a requirement to be recognized as special, if not better, what happened, for example, to many whites in the United States who listened to the stories of African American, women, gay and bad victimization.

After the financial crisis of 2008, when support for left-wing populism should have increased, the right-wing populism was more likely to emerge and its discourse better explained the economic situation of the middle clbad, claiming, for example, that the elite, allowing high levels of immigration, conspired to pull them out of their jobs

"And at some point, they say," and what about us? All these people have a privilege. The elites put them in front of us. But we are not doing so well either. We are also victims. "But they are members of the dominant racial community and, therefore, their claim to be victims is much less morally powerful than that of minority groups."

Fukuyama believes that migration, which is a contribution to the economies of countries, is one of the factors that adds tension to this equation. He proposes the example of "Brexit" in the United Kingdom.

"The race or ethnicity of immigration is not the most important thing: it's their integration … I think it's important that governments control levels of immigration, because even if it's beneficial, if it happens too quickly, people become disoriented, and that generates a political reaction, which happened in the United Kingdom. United with Brexit: So many people have emigrated to the UK in such a short time, that many people born in this country have felt they are losing control of their own country. "

-You have also noticed that today, there is a decrease in the attachment to democracy, which can be seen in the election of leaders who do not hesitate not to present themselves as authoritarian or totally apolitical. What risks do you see there?

"It's very dangerous, you do not have a democratic system if people do not believe it, I think what happened is that the quality of government in many democracies is very Disappointing, especially with regard to the problem of corruption, because sometimes democracy is the cure for corruption, but sometimes it is also the source of corruption.

"Democratic leaders need to be elected and the easiest way to get elected is sometimes to bribe voters by giving them things, or to give positions or appointments to their political allies." Therefore, many democracies can not Granting one is as things started in Brazil: it was a protest for buses and bus fares and for corruption in the services of São Paulo.

You do not have a democratic system if people do not believe it. I think what has happened is that the quality of the government of many democracies is a great disappointment, especially with regard to the problem of corruption, because democracy is sometimes a cure for corruption, but also sometimes the source of corruption. Corruption

From there, a political movement emerged to put an end to the corruption, which was then mingled with a struggle between the left and the right in Brazil. That's what led to (Jair)

Bolsonaro

in power: the perception that the entire political elite in Brazil was highly corrupted ".

-Today, we tend to despise the elite, either because they have benefited from globalization while other people did not have the tools to do it, either because They tend to portray political elites as corrupt. How is this situation balanced?

"It's dangerous because any society needs elites or people with the education and skills needed for society to function, and that contempt often does not fit a democracy." First, the elites themselves sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes they are isolated from public opinion, sometimes they do not understand the consequences of the options that they recommend.

This is dangerous because any society needs elites, or people with the education and skills needed for society to function. And many times that contempt does not suit a democracy

"That's one of the things that happened with free trade, because almost all economists said that free trade was good, but in fact, in some countries, it hurt workers, and they have announced a compensation, but this has never happened.And one of its effects has been this great reaction against globalization and against the elites who have directed it: the elites must be connected with the people.

"The other thing that's happening is that today's people are better educated and, because of the rise of the Internet, they have direct access to information, which did not exist before. " It also meant that misinformation was more accessible.

"Before having editors, data checkers and professionally trained journalists to review the articles before publishing them, everyone can now put what they want on the Internet without having them." it has become a kind of political war weapon that nurtures the perception that you can not believe in anything, that nothing is really true and that it undermines the shared knowledge base needed for establishment of a democratic political system. "

When Fukuyama announced the end of history, at a conference at the University of Chicago in 1989, his idea was described as "brilliant and outrageous". He argued that under the ruins of left and right totalitarianism, the fall of South American dictatorships and the dying Soviet Union, liberal democracy and the "free market" were the only political aspiration. reasonable.

Previously, you had professionally trained copywriters, data checkers, and reporters to review the articles before publishing them. Now, no matter who can put what he wants on the Internet, without checking it. And this has become a kind of political war weapon that also nurtures the perception that we can not believe in anything, that nothing is really true

Fukuyama said that the story was over and that, even if it did not create a perfect world, because democracy also had its problems, it would not suffer at least not a mbadive collapse like that of communism in Europe. 39; East.

-Why do you think your idea of ​​"the end of history" has affected so many people?

"Much of the reaction to" the end of the story "was based on a misinterpretation of the meaning of the sentence: it did not mean that things would stop all of a sudden, it did not happen. In fact, it was a question of knowing whether there was a real alternative to liberal democracy as a superior form of social organization.

"I think the article corresponds to a big change that was taking place in world politics because it had been published a few months before the fall of the Berlin Wall and this great advance of democracy in Europe. East and former communist governments it has spread throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia ".

– These were moments of hope in many places. How would you describe this moment?

"I think it's important not to be too pessimistic about what's happening now, we've suffered a setback for democracy, many democracies have moved in the wrong direction, but that's still the form of 39, dominant organization in the world, and even authoritarian countries like Russia's (Vladimir)

Putin

They still believe that they must go through the election ritual as they have no other form of legitimacy to propose to replace democracy as a form of government.

"So, in this sense, I believe that democracy is still a very powerful idea and remains the main idea for us to organize politically in the world today."

Paula Molina – Chile, special for BBC News World