In 1968, political scientist Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008) published his most important (though, alas, not his most well-known) book: "Political Order in Changing Societies". This book is still considered essential reading for students of comparative politics, especially those studying political development and modernization theory. In it, Huntington challenged the conventional wisdom of the day about how countries develop, and what developing countries need to do in order to modernize their political systems. I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't re-read Huntington's classic text since grad school; so my recollection of the specifics of his argument might be a bit fuzzy. But the main lesson I learned from "Political Order in Changing Societies" is that discussions of development and modernization tend to place too much emphasis on the importance of freedom and democracy, and too little emphasis on the importance of stability and good governance.
For Huntington, whether a country is a capitalist democracy or a communist dictatorship is far less crucial than whether or not it has a government that is actually capable of governing -- i.e. maintaining law and order, insuring peace and security, and providing essential public goods and services. As he saw it, the problem with many countries in the developing world is not that they have the wrong system of government, but that they barely have any government at all. The first order of business for political development has to be building a state that is strong enough to govern, and stable enough to withstand political conflict, economic crisis, and social upheaval without collapsing. Once a strong, stable state is in place, the administration of that state needs to be professionalized and purged of corruption and cronyism. Only then should we worry about what specific form of government that state has. Perhaps the worst mistake we can make when dealing with developing countries is to prematurely push them towards holding free elections -- which are almost always destabilizing -- before they have even established basic political order within their societies. This is a recipe for chaos. (And, despite Huntington's warning, we are still making this same mistake today in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.)
In 2011, political scientist Francis Fukuyama, a former student, colleague, and friend of Samuel Huntington, published a new book dedicated to his late mentor. Fukuyama is best known for his 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man", which explored what the end of communism had to teach us about political development and the spread of liberal democracy. More recently, he has become a noted critic of neoconservatism, a political philosophy he had supported before the Iraq War, but which he abandoned once it became clear that the neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration was a complete disaster. But in his most recent book, Fukuyama returns to the topic of political development, giving an updated follow-up to Huntington's classic text on the subject.
Fukuyama's goal in "The Origins of Political Order" is to lay the foundations for a theory of political development that is able to explain where political institutions come from, how they develop, which institutions are necessary for good governance, and why some countries have those institutions while others do not. As far as I'm concerned, Fukuyama achieves this goal quite admirably. This book is a worthy successor to "Political Order in Changing Societies", and should be required reading for students of comparative politics. In fact, I think Fukuyama has written the definitive text on political development. I'm not suggesting that political science students ought to stop reading Huntington -- his insights are still important -- but, in my opinion, Fukuyama's contributions to the field surpass those of his former teacher. This book should be incorporated into the standard political science curriculum as quickly as possible.
So, what insights does Fukuyama bring to the study of political development? First, he argues (persuasively, in my opinion) that a society needs three very distinct things if it is to be well governed: First, a strong state. Second, the rule of law. And third, political accountability. As Huntington noted back in 1968, if a state can't govern the territory it is supposed to be sovereign over -- if it can't enforce laws, maintain order, settle disputes, defend the borders, put down attempted coups and insurrections, collect taxes, provide public goods and services, manage public works projects, etc. -- it doesn't really matter whether it is democratic or authoritarian: it will be unable to protect and serve its citizens, leaving them vulnerable to violence, deprivation, and exploitation. Contrary to anarchist and libertarian fantasies, keeping the government weak will not safeguard the freedom of ordinary citizens. In fact, quite the opposite. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, the "state of nature" abhors a power vacuum. If government officials aren't able to exercise control over a given territory, then someone else -- warlords, strongmen, street gangs, organized crime bosses, business interests, landowners, religious authorities, demagogues, factional leaders, tribal elders, local bigwigs, etc. -- certainly will; and they will do so in a way that advances their own parochial interests with little regard for the rights, liberties, or welfare of anyone outside their own favored in-group. So, the first thing a society needs in order to insure the wellbeing of its citizens is a strong state that is actually capable of exercising sovereign political power throughout a given territory.
But if a society has a strong state, what's to prevent that state from abusing its power and oppressing the people? That's where the other two requisites for good governance come in: the rule of law and political accountability. Without these two things, there's little to prevent a powerful state from becoming an abusive state. The rule of law means that the state can't simply exercise its power arbitrarily, but has to do everything in accordance with certain established rules and procedures. This places a much-needed check on the power of the state without leaving it too weak to govern. In modern times, the rule of law often takes the form of a (written or unwritten) constitution, and an independent judiciary with at least some power of judicial review. In pre-modern times, it often took the form of an organized religion with the self-proclaimed authority to speak on behalf of a power higher than the state, which upheld a body of sacred laws that even kings were obliged to obey. But, regardless of how the rule of law gets implemented in any particular society at any given point in time, the fundamental principle behind it is the same: The government is not above the law.
But the rule of law, by itself, might not be sufficient to insure that a strong state doesn't abuse its power. One additional thing is needed: political accountability. In other words, the government, and those entrusted to run it, must be held to account for how the power of the state is used. Abuses of power must be punished. Corrupt or incompetent officials must be removed from office. Bad laws must be repealed; ineffective policies changed; and attempts at government overreach halted. Nowadays, political accountability is often equated with electoral democracy: We vote our political leaders into office, and can vote them out if we don't like how they are doing their job. But, this is a very modern view of accountability. Democracy, as we think of it today, with universal adult suffrage, was essentially nonexistent before the 20th century. Different mechanisms of accountability were used in earlier times, when the elites of civil society, rather than the masses, were entrusted with the responsibility of keeping tabs on the government. But, regardless of what specific mechanisms are used, the important thing is that the government is held accountable for how it uses its power.
So, these three things are the key to a well-governed society: a strong state, the rule of law, and political accountability. Modern societies in the developed world are generally regarded as having all three. But, even today, there are many countries around the world that don't have all of these requisites for good governance: Some have two of the three; some have only one; and some have none. Why is this the case? Why are some societies less politically developed than others? That's what Francis Fukuyama spends most of this book trying to explain.
Using historical case studies from around the world, Fukuyama explores how states first arose out of tribal and feudal societies when neighboring tribes or fiefdoms were forced to unite under a single sovereign power so they could more effectively wage war against distant enemies; how organized religion gave us the concept of law, and established the principle that law ought to be seen as distinct from, and even superior to, the state; and how struggles between the state and independently powerful private interests (e.g. the aristocracy, the landed gentry, and the bourgeoisie) over issues such as taxation and the administration of justice led to the creation of strong parliaments with the authority to say "no" to kings. He also shows why this process didn't occur uniformly around the world: why strong states failed to emerge in places where the pressure to unite against foreign enemies was low; why the rule of law never took root in societies where there was no effective "separation of church and state"; and why political accountability is practically nonexistent in those countries where rulers were able to co-opt or suppress the most powerful private interests within their society.
The bulk of "The Origins of Political Order" is devoted to case studies demonstrating how political institutions originated in pre-modern times; but, in the final two chapters, Fukuyama summarizes his ideas about where our political institutions came from, and what this tells us about the course of political development. I won't try to recap the details of his theory here; but I will say that, at least in my view, it gives a convincing explanation of how we got our most important political institutions; and it does so while managing to avoid both the Scylla of historicism and the Charybdis of reductionism.
I should note that this book is only the first part of what is planned to be a two-volume set on political development. This first part focuses on the pre-modern era, which covers the period from prehistoric times up to the eve of the French Revolution. The second volume (still unfinished as of this writing) is supposed to pick up where this book leaves off, and examine political development in the modern era. If the second volume is even remotely as good as the first, then I can't wait to read it.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
![The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution by [Francis Fukuyama]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51FsEr29TCL._SY346_.jpg)
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
All 2 for you in this series
See full series
More like The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution
Page 1 of 1Start overPage 1 of 1
Loading...
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Clear, deep and solid investigation & arguments in a broad historical perspective.
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
Rr
A must read author to endersatnd our world to day and it's future
Reviewed in Mexico on June 23, 2023
David Navas
Imprescindible para tener una visión de los pilares de nuestra sociedad
Reviewed in Spain on August 11, 2017
