What is the future of the world?

As of 1997 when Zakaria published "The Rise Illiberal Democracy," more than half of the world's nations had some form of democracy. According to Fukuyama, we'd long since reached the final form of ideology. Now the only problems facing the human race were clashes between civilizations or even the coming of anarchy as Huntington and Kaplan both wrote about during the '90s.

But as Zakaria points out, democracy isn't used universally. Free elections and the protection of our inalienable rights isn't exactly what democracy means to everyone. He claims democracy might mean having elections or granting the people some say in how the country is run, but constitutional liberalism is what protects the people by giving them basic human rights.

Many democracies don't honor their citizens with these rights; these are what Zakaria considers illiberal democracies. As he says constitutional liberalism "is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source--state, church, or society."

Everyone has their own version of democracy. Some countries, such as China, have economic liberalism but don't have a democracy. Sweden has a democracy but restricts its citizens' individual property rights. This is expected. As Zakaria says, "cultures vary, and different societies will require different frameworks of government."

But Zakaria also points out that illiberal democracies, which make up about half of the democracies around the world, are dangerous:

"Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war."

Maybe it's dangerous because of how different each form of democracy is. Differences in civilizations may be able to account for the differences in democracies. Huntington's theory, the "Clash of Civilizations," may help explain this. The United States likes to spread its liberal seed, but it's hard to create the exact form of government in every nation in the world. There is no ideal democracy because every society requires something different. Civilizations unable to understand one another's differences may be the exact reason why they will continue to clash and cause war.

After reading Fukuyama, Huntington, Kaplan and Zakaria, I fear what the future brings. Kaplan is probably the one who struck me the most. Yes, civilizations will continue to clash, especially with differences in government and culture, but Kaplan's "Coming of Anarchy" might be shining light on the true problems of the future. His view was extremely pessimistic, but he was right about the environment, the diminishing of resources and the inevitable problems this will someday bring. The increasing population ensures this future will always be a possibility.

I really can't predict what will happen to the world as natural resources begin to run out. When you live with as much luxuries as middle class America lives with, you can't imagine a world where survival is the first concern. My main concern is making enough money at my part time job to pay rent and the gas and electric bill. I have no idea what it's like to live in a Third World country.

More wars will probably litter the future of the world. Civilizations will consider to clash as everyone creates their own personal style of democracy and as cultures continue to cross one another. These tensions will never disappear. And if these tensions never disappear, they will only worsen when the Earth begins run out of supplies. I suppose we can only hope science and technology grows faster than the world's resources run out.