>> we are here to celebrate the publication of francis fukuyama major contribution "the origins of political order" from prehuman times to the french revolution." before we begin i want to

say this is a momentous time for politics and prose. i am david, a karlas husband and she and barbara together with the stellar staff that politics and prose, you have been very engaged and articulate lovers of books and ideas and the community of writers publishers and editors and agents have made politics and prose more than bricks and mortar bookstore is a thriving community institution. it is the setting for the discussion and disseminating of ideas and the public space where people meet to talk and disagreed discuss and do it in a civil way. it will continue that way into the leadership of the new owners brad and lisa

continuity will stand and the appropriate changes will be made but not around a community institution around ideas and public space. i very much one to introduce 59 tonight because i respect him even though as i told him i taught civil society activist to work on civil society we have a lot of vigorous discussion about the end of history and 10 or 15 years ago and the more important reason is the is the open-minded scholar who embraces big ideas and was not encapsulated by silos are artificial boundaries as

he has a new ones and complexity, dome be fooled by the fact that this book has it says from prehuman times to the french revolution" the professor takes us through the relationship to the state law of accountable government. telling it that accountable government one does not presuppose that they would have alive discussions and talks about the failed state and asked probing questions about the nine states as well and above the fact that you defend the necessity of politics even as you take us through political anxiety and decay and it makes us think about our own society in the united states.

i have not read the whole book get but i have already been made to think it as an open-minded liberal you help me realize there is more to hijack -- hayek. let's welcome francis fukuyama and pay a tribute to the good work of c-span which adds public discourse to those who work the cameras to make it happen. [applause] >> thank you it is a great honor to be here to have this wonderful audience i am a great day you are here at politics and prose the one of the great thing this is to go to a real brick and mortar bookstore to realize there are people who still

like real books and come out 40 events like this but because of the intellectual challenge a. thank you for coming. getting straight into it, i wrote to this book for a number of reasons. samuel was a teacher when i was a student at harvard and wrote an important book which three reading it now is probably one of the best guides of what is going on in the middle east at the present moment but it needed to be updated. i thought of the project and it opens on the very first page the soviet union and the united states are equally developed political orders. that doesn't seem quite right after the fall of the berlin wall but i have been thinking about

nation-building, iraq, somal ia, all of these charges and we have this illusion of the problem of getting to denmark. that is not a real country that has low corruption and democracy and stable government and good services delivered efficiently and we have a vision of denmark and the back of our heads then we go to afghanistan how we get it to look like denmark? that doesn't look very well and part of the reason i began to realize is we don't understand how denmark to denmark. i have of visiting professorship there so i have been going there the last few years and the danes have no idea how it got to be denmark so it strikes me as a political scientist to

see where political institutions come from so that is why we have the book that i produced. i did not want to write a book on the origins of politics that talks about the anglo centric story not because i am opposed to england or the west but it is the distortion that has been taught in a lot of the discourse that begins with carl marks the model for modernization and that is everybody's future and what you realize when you learn something is that it is a very peculiar country in the ways that i will explain and to expect other countries to replicate any other path is highly unrealistic and in

fact,, in my view, it was china, not that it was not the first eight the mesopotamia and the valley of mexico but they established the first modern state not based on hiring your cousins and friends to run the government's civil -- civil service examination and centralized administration and doing this third century bc a historical achievement that i think a lot of people have not adequately recognized so starting with greece and rome and a magnet kurta it seemed to make more sense to start with china why are other societies different? that is the background there are three baskets of institutions we need to think about.

the state is all about power and the ability to concentrate power in the hierarchy to use it to enforce rules over a territory. in the developing world why we sometimes take politics for granted, we assume things will have been. long term living in fairfax county the pot holes get filled every spring. why? there is a hideous social structure that provides the services and pretty efficiently in a rich county like fairfax. but to it is interesting why those happen and all of the anti-government activist don't understand if you want of a country that doesn't have the strong government

then you ought used days go to somalia or less developed country that cannot enforce the rules on its own territory. if you don't just 12 on the assault rifle, and then you are freed to do it but it is not a happy society because second is the rule of law that is all about community rules of justice that is regarded twos the will whoever is of president gore came monarch. the executive doesn't feel he or she can make up the rules on the fly but implement the law that somebody else makes. that is the second set now the third is institutions of accountability today we associate those with democracy but that is not

the only form of accountability. when institutions were first put into place seventh century english and italy represented 10% of the population. the richest 10 percent say have accountability without democracy because i believe in china you can also have a moral accountability to say a government can feel obligated to take the interest of its citizens in account so the question is where did these come from? the rule of law and means are limiting power and the miracle of modern politics is you get the president of the united states to is the most powerful in human history could nukes the world but it is limited by law and accountable institutions.

i will tell you a few stories from the book. began with the state. and some incense in my view it is a struggle human nature tells you a couple of things. there are a couple of biological principles that govern sociability sometimes we get the incorrect notion that before the rise of the state you have people clubbing each other over the head but that was never true human society never went through that period. they were always social because they are born with certain characteristics to allow them to cooperate so one simply means your altruistic of proportion to the number of genes that we share so you will favor relatives the second

principle is altruism you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours and no human child has to be taught these mechanisms they are arms of social mobility friends and family and in the absence of a modern institution that forces you to hire somebody with qualifications rather than your cousin are brother-in-law, that is the way you will do it that is how politics runs itself. so people believe they are descended from a common ancestor basically third and fourth and fifth cousins and how you get from the state based on kinship as a form of social organization based on citizenship is the fact i am a citizen of the state of france or japan so that is

why there is a constant struggle against this biological urge to protect your children. how does this happen with china? unfortunately as a result of centuries long military conflict. a famous political scientist who was famous for arguing in the case of europe that the state makes more and the war makes the state it is military competition that drove people out of tribal society into the more organized units if you look at chinese history that is what unfolds. this those the tribes come from manchuria to, credit people at that point* they are split into 3,000 tribal groups in the spring and autumn they fight 1200 lawyers and the number is

reduced only because so many states were snuffed out and concord there are not many states and finally this powerful western state conkers the ribose and establishes the first unified chinese dynasty and as in europe the process is driven first you are fighting with aristocrats and you will do a lot better but you need tax and resources you create a bureaucracy and the administrative hierarchy so if you hire your cousin to be a general you will lose

the war so you need them different principle so they come up with the civil service examination with entry into the government but unfortunately it did not last. what defines chinese civilization saw the flourishing of centralized high-quality government and it falls apart third century a.d. for a number of reasons and is that aristocratic families with 12 and power recapture the government and this continues in through the dynasties in this modern chinese state that was established already doesn't get put back into play until about 1100 so the struggle

goes on for a very long time. the weirdest institution to create a powerful state is a system of military slavery developed during the boston dynasty the second big arab dynasty carried to the logical conclusion by the ottoman. what they did every three or four years would send people into the balkan provinces and look for young men between the age of 12 and 19 and forcibly take them from their families and raise them as slaves but they weighed train them to be senior military officers and administrators and a grand this year was the prime minister of the ottoman

empire why did they create this strange institution? by the way the people recruited were not allowed to marry or have children and if they did they were either expelled and the children were never allowed to rise. why did they do it? because of the family. the mome -- the moment you allow positions you need to secure positions and the ottoman understood it has to be based on promoting people by merit therefore if you allow them to have family is you cannot do that so it created the one generation aristocracy and low whole ottoman system began to collapse the moment these entrenched groups took the opening caused by famine and rising inflation with the 17th century touse demand their children would assume

their position. this is a general problem they face exactly the same problem those that could oppose the king so what do they do? they sell-off the office of tax collector or finance minister to wealthy individuals this had the important impact to break up the opposition to the centralization product of louis xiv and other great monarch's. but there is a desire to privatize public office. grab as much of the public sector as you can it in the early 1600's it became permissible for the wealthy individuals to turn them over to their children as

property with the chateau in the vineyards he would also get the position of another public office. by the time this sector was sold off, the constant struggle you cannot create a modern state under these circumstances. the revolution basically divested these old deletes not just the property and offices but their heads and it took of violent revolution to eliminate that system. let's talk about the rule of law. this is the second basket of institutions they are limitations and rules that limit rulers to do as they want. where do you get this system? in my view it always comes out of religion because if you think about it, religion

is the only source of rules outside of politics where rulers are limited and this is true in many civilization conditions and ancient israel, and schrute in the world of islam and did in india under hinduism. in every society have a religious law made by religious authorities interpreted by hierarchies in the case of islam and then the ruler pass to go to get sanctions 1/2 to be sanctified and there is a clear distinction and the priest is on top of the warrior. that is a rule of law what we mean by rule of law.

the only role civilization that did not have rule of law is china and the reason why or a transcendental religion they have ancestor worship in his amazing to think they got so sophisticated with the primitive religion because you're not required to worship the emperor's ancestors but just you're so there is no authority but it is completely controlled by the state sell to nobody felt there is a higher source to obey. the chinese communist party the constitution doesn't limit what they want to do. the rule applied develops very early and powerful one of the hero's life the

reformation i like the catholic church with some historical risk spence it was important in the early middle a ages bishops and priests could marry and have children and guess what they did? they turned it over to their children and got involved with core politics and wrapped up with the klan shenanigans of the local prince of italy and germany and at one point late 11th century pope gregory vii titanic figure who would come after him by a few centuries to realized unless the church itself eliminated the biological principle to have children it would not have the moral authority to become the independent institution furthermore at

that point* all bishops were appointed by the emperor. the church did not have control over its own personal policy. says he appoints the bishops and then all priests and bishops have to be celibate and this becomes a surprise. they do not like it an even bigger struggle with the emperor who wants to keep the church as his legitimate source of authority they fight but to generation war the allies of the pope versus the emperor and at the end of the period the church receives independence. at that point* day established a separate ecclesiastical law presided by the ship -- bishops and priests only over the lawyers and the whole idea

of bureaucratic government by legal specialist doesn't happen first in the church than is transferred to the secular realm then divides church and state and the legal authorities have the separate hierarchy completely independent if european rulers and this is extremely important because many european rulers who was to be a chinese emperor has to contend with the fact there is a pre-existing said of legal constraints them from doing that. snows sometimes you get the etfs coming from tocqueville once the idea gets out it is

unstoppable and hafez but one thing that you realize when you look at the actual history is just how weird and contingent the emergence was and 80 rhodes because of the survival because of a peculiar futile her evolution and every european country has the body or a sovereign court and all of these recollections of notables of high nobility sometimes of the bourgeoisie and sometimes the king had to get permission to wage war and especially to collect taxes. in the late 16th and 17th centuries to have the

pont -- powerful monarchs and wanted to behave like an emperor to create a centralized powerful bureaucratic world which everything was uniform and they waged a long struggle against these estates of every single country and only in one of them did the parliament or estates when the battle which was england. in a sense it shows how accidental history is. it didn't prevail in france because the french sold off the office is too wealthy individuals with you take care of me and my family i am fine with everything else. we will not defend our liberty so tocqueville said they interpreted that as privilege but it didn't happen in spain and certainly not in russia where bizarre turn the military into his own

organization although it did happen for a very peculiar reasons because, for a whole variety of reasons had solidarity they raised the army and fought the civil war defeated him and cut off his head from the 16 forties then in 1688 the depose another keying and bring in william from warrants to be the new monarch because of the issue they did not want to be taxed without parliamentary consent. it just happens with the one island nation they could force the constitutional settlement and from there to the american founding is a short distance because john locke was a participant and wrote to the second treatise of government justifying rule that has to come out of

consent of the government than the american revolution based no taxation without representation. the distance from those english defense and our own founding as a country is not long at all but would not have happened if we were colonized by spain and in latin america at it did not happen on that timescale and did not results in a commercial empire the breaking clint he called except for the balance saying of rule of law so if you think about it there was no necessity of our historical driving forces are how this is the outcome. this is what they imitated

but the fact they got there was a historical accident. because china was such an early stage they never allowed the blood aristocracy zero or opposing religious groups to appear and they don't do it to this day. they do control because it is a potential source of opposition. i will conclude with a couple of observations about how this is relevant to understanding politics of begin within the and china every business school for the last tender 15 years does the emerging markets courses win china wants to build the dam 1/2 to move 1.2 billion people out of the flood plain. they just do it. people kick and scream there is unhappiness but they do it. they build the dam the

beautiful airports in a chinese cities, the turnpike's, infrastructure be cut as they have a very strong high quality authoritarian government that does not respect the interest of services. and india the top down motor company wanted to establish a car assembly plant so what happens i get hit with lawsuits and trade unions go on strike protesting and finally said enough. we will not do that two and they put it elsewhere so then you have a problem with basic infrastructure because of the democracy. the indian state cannot do whatever it wants because of where a lot and

accountability are much more important. lot of people say it is the inheritance of british colonialism more something that happen to the last couple years i now understand this is total nonsense reflecting patters of government that is the least 2500 years old and since unification in 221 the country is falling apart but always comes to gather and spend more time as unified authoritarian country governed by the single authority van investee of disunity. india is almost the opposite and only unified for two brief periods. when the moguls are the british invaded and thought to rule india none of them could extend the rule so the

fact that india is a democracy does not have deep historical roots but the fact it is not a chinese dictatorship data -- is not an accident. india is rate to tough and organized and very groups that resist to dominate the accounts of modernization don't understand how peculiar modernization which is important to remember when we tried to modernize with the third world today.

and the exit from kinship is not done by a powerful state that the amounts of peep staged a man's people have allegiance but done by the catholic church in then forbade the concubines and forbade marriage up to 5 degrees of related mr. husband's been that cuts off the ability of the klan or the tribal group to keep property within the klan. they also supported the rights of women who alienate property and they did this for self-interest did reasons because they want to break the economic power and it worked beautifully it turns out a lot of widows and spinsters ended up with

all of the money in the family and when they died without children guess who inherited that? the catholic church so the holdings club by 30% the first part of the eighth century as a result of these changes and it means individualism started in europe at a much earlier point* so within two or three generations to christianity all of the barbarian tribes were already not living in the tribal association and england is carried to the extreme if you were provident enough to turn over your fortune before you die without signing a contract to could be in big trouble because the dad could say i have my business to worry about seven the

english family is in the 1300 you have family signed contracts you could not rely on children to take care of their parents in the old age so that has individualism we're not bound by the tyranny of cousins by the big conglomeration of relatives much more individualistic but this finally the sequence goes like this. first rule of law than only later do get democratic accountability but loss comes before the state building the one and european monarch had to do this against the background that limited the ability to

exercise power and a finite -- anecdote is the character of the only woman in chinese history thank you

very much. [applause] >> what a rich presentation. maybe nominally a political scientist but allot of sensibility. one of the things you ought to know is francis fukuyama has been in public service. he has been one of those that lets government have a longer range outlook than they have by a serving on the state department twice

as the deputy under dennis ross and as you know, there is a distinguished group of people who have served as the head of the state department policy staff, people who have a passion for public service such as those as it francis fukuyama. let's begin with the question. >> that was a wonderful overview maybe this is too specific but you began to say how do we get to be denmark? now there is an opening between in flint and us and their mission involves more responsibility to takeover retirement or organize health and we seem to go exactly the other direction is there something of your

theory that speaks to that? >> wait for volume two. [laughter] >> that is a very good question and it is an issue but most of what i know this subject i learned from the great sociologists here wrote a very good but called american exception list of about why the united states is so peculiar when you compare it to other developed countries and one of the ways it is different is we don't trust government. in europe people see that as the embodiment of the public interest but in the united states and is regarded potentially is impressive and it is argued that came out of the american and revolution that the u.s. was born in a revolt against

overweening power which has stuck with us. the other issue is since america was a land not for those indigenous people but for those new sellers it had them much greater do the -- degree of social mobility so if you didn't make it your children or grandchildren could rise. this reinforces if you are poor, it is because you haven't worked hard enough and if you are industrious or 50 that it reinforces the american and willingness to have the state put u.s. head. it has individuals on their own.

>> i have a question from the state department-- but one element you have not brought up is the issue of technology and the spread of the information they suspect is in the second volume but we may be at the end of history moment where information technology has radically changed a lot of the underlying elements. >> caris is an important change with social media very good at mobilizing people and social mobilization is critical for producing democratic change. what is not clear is whether it is as good is producing

an institution's assets mobilization if you look at today's share or egypt right now what they need is political parties and leaders and three media. >> host: institutions -- institutions that make it able to stand up to demand things the government and technology can help certainly but it is not the panacea that to some people see that as being. >> but more in this sense of transcending the other problems that the information can overcome that we didn't have before? that was more to my point*. >> for the second volume you may want to check another authority and lowered the be

cousins but second world war facades have been demonstrably higher than ours presumably because of the welfare state and educational investment. >> >> he said it was believed. >> i have a question you saying one as social scientists to everyone has one for better or worse but it this city is fall of tens of thousands of university graduates highly educated general petraeus is extremely proud of his ph.d. bated you look at two the

results of policy derivatives of what they may have learned the results are far from subprime? what is your comment? [laughter] >> as a professional educator i do not want to move at denigrate of the university education i taught for a decade and i think some of my students are here. [laughter] did you learn anything? okay. however let me make the comment i do think the direction a lot of the social sciences have moved is not helpful because it has been taken over by economics so actually one of my agenda is is to remind

people that they cannot understand the way the contemporary world is unless they know more history and cannot gain theoretical models and what of the reasons a lot of contemporary political scientist has not been terribly useful to policy makers is because it has moved into the abstract realm where people don't know about real places and cannot tell you what you do when you are confronting these tribes because nobody try to spend time in the villages to figure out what is going on. of course, my students spend time in the villages and they are the big exception to the rule. >> my students like henry kissinger was also congratulations.

[laughter] >> he was a distinguished professor at georgetown and has presented here as well. [laughter] >> in the end of history you argue liberal democracy represents the end point* of history which is to say that unlike previous stages it does not contain within itself the seeds of its own destruction to have the internal contradictions that have destroyed all others. in the first chapter of your new book you touch on disturbing famous the notion that the government is bad and not needed stratification of wealth the

rise of corporations but the 20 years since he published history do doubt we're at the end of history or see the destruction of what we thought was the end to spawn something new? >> a couple of different parts of the answer i have been thinking a lot over the last 20 years. [laughter] i have not sat still and one of the themes is what i picked up from huntington's because one thing you see clearly is you create institutions four 1/7 purposes then people invest with the intrinsic words through religious sanctification and then the circumstances change and if they become dysfunctional. i would say we have a

problem right now in the united states we face certain long-term challenges and sustainability of where we are. our political system is so polarized that it undermines the political cultures too not make the basic decisions if we cannot follow these problems there is no reason to think our particular democracy will do that well. it could dk over time. that is a slightly different question from the one i raised in the end of history which is can you think of a better political system to solve these problems and right now the one that is out there is the authoritarian capitalist china and taking it on a roll right now but i don't believe the system is sustainable over a long period of time compared to a

system like ours that has checks and balances. largely because i don't think the chinese have never solve the problem themselves which is the bad employer problem that if you have the authoritarian system without checks and balances and a good emperor you are sitting pretty much better decisions than a democracy the past have consensus and agreement and interest groups and that sort of thing but a bad employer you're in trouble there is no way to get rid of that person the evo and press to was maniacal daewoo very scholars in the open pit because they did not like what he said about them you do not get that in a democratic system so from that respect i still go with

our system down the road for all of the current problems. >> you dated the importance of the law of the church to the eight century. >> that was the end of the family it was the 11th century rather. >> that shoots the question because i wonder we were always told charlemagne saved civilization benefit already have the foundation he would have been inheriting. he did not have that? i misunderstood. >> congratulations on the book i want to ask is somebody who believes that you may correct predictions the year before the end of communism and my belief is

the two people before me ask the question of but i want to emphasize we don't want more or chaos our democracy or free markets and the arab world and china at the same time but is it something you recommend to policy makers right now although they have to deal with a lot should they not be afraid without chaos or war? >> absolutely. i believe historic day the united states is regarded as a national identity we just happen to the democratic here but we are a model to other people be leading this is based with universal human rights and rules of

justice and we promoted democracy all over the place might objection during the iraq war is we should not do that militarily but based on people in the societies that one democracy there is plenty of ways to level the playing field when they are facing authoritarian regimes. the means was different i never believed that american democracy was a model has such they actually want to transcend power politics and so forth. >> thank you dr. howard is india's policy in kashmir fit in? 75,000 deaths and accounted?

>> i will not act as the spokesperson for the indian government i don't know why they are doing this democracies do a lot of dumb things if you look at american foreign policy and you see we make a lot of mistakes in the world as well but just because the country is a democracy doesn't mean it puts the promotion of democratic values first and foremost we support saudi arabia because they have will not because they are a democracy. and it is interesting and other democracies like india turkey and brazil are different because they don't regard the democratic values as the same imperative that americans do. >> we will

take everyone who is in line and then we have to come to an end. >> this maybe volume three but given the supranational organizations of the wind and world trade and the world court and regionals can i coach you into commenting on the prospects of the world's eight? >> sure. [laughter] the prospect is zero. [laughter] i just think if you look at a political system it has to be based on some minimal degree of consensus about basic rules of justice and values and so forth in the big diverse democracy like

united states we have a lot of trouble with that in rural louisiana people think differently from sand and cisco it is hard enough to manage that in that context but if you talk about the diversity of levels of development and everything else it is not a reasonable prospect it is something i wrote about in my last book the you could hope for a much denser system of partial organization to overlap summer regional and functional and provide global governments but not through this single world. >> this question may sound eurocentric and i apologize ahead of time but the end of middle ages the treaty we

established the nation's states and the agreement the sovereignty of the nation's state was the number one legal issue and that the average is theory their relations with the post-world war to order the idea of a responsibility to protect trumps the sovereignties that protects especially with fresh judge justifying the intervention in been tortured by then normative example and do you think we move into a nation state? >> i don't think wherever that deep. in the 19th century all of these marxist running around to undermine other