It is understandable that Huntington always takes the political order as the ultimate care of his political development theory, and he always tries to find the balance of order and democracy from developing countries'' political development practices. The reason may be that, at his times, Huntington saw the developing countries deep in troubles for a moment. Especially when he saw the former Soviet Union was at vantage pro tempore in the battle for supremacy, he fell into a pessimistic mode, which decided that he held a negative view at that time on the western liberty and democracy as well as their growth conditions. However, with the times progressing and societies advancing, the social situations are changing every second, so he had to make corrections to his former views. As what he acknowledged later, the experiences of western developed countries like UK and US in realizing modernization at the early stages shall be learnt and used for reference by the upcoming nations. But, this time, he neglected the problems existing in the current western social system. When discussing about the troubles facing the developing countries, he always consciously and unconsciously evaded the international background and external causes of these problems and kept silent on the relationship of the national political turbulence with the international interferences as well as with the hegemonism. Anyway, in terms of the methodology, Huntington put forward a totally abstract interpretation of the developing countries as well as their political development activities. He argued that the political order shall be the goal, and to achieve this goal, certain political measures must be adopted. By political measures, Huntington means that the governor''s effectively control over the governed so as to maintain the stable political order. So we can see that Huntington has recoganised the relationship of the authority with the stability and also the function of the stable governing order. But he had not considered the possibility of political turbulence caused by the governor''s unscrupulous behaviours trampling upon the liberty. Moreover, in many circumstances, the latter is more destructive for political orders of developing countries. So we have to question Huntington''s theory of political stability and order, and particularly we are confused by his conclusion that "the order should take priority over the liberty" can be proved with logical approaches and practical experiences. The author thinks, when Huntington stated the construction of political orders, the most important thing is that he neglected the positive roles the constitutional government and rule of law play in the political orders. In his description, the political order has no substantial contents and features of the constitutional order, neither the formal components. So it is hard to obtain the public trust, and its tendency of universal politicization can be partly seen.
2. Fukuyama''s liberal democracy system - realistic contradiction of theory of history end.
Another western politics giant contemporary with Huntington, Mr. Fukuyama also made comments about the political orders. In summer of 1989, Fukuyama published an article titled "The End of History" on the US "National Interest", and in 1992 he published another paper titled in "The End of History and the Last Man", in which he systematically expounded his political order theory. In his opinion, the history of the development of human societies is a human universal history heading for liberal democracy. The liberal democracy system is "the end of the development of human ideological forms" and "the final ruling form of human societies" and it composes the end of history. [34] He also pointed out that, the end of history does not mean the stagnation of history or that no more great historical affairs will happen; instead it means that "the basic principle and systems of history may no longer progress, because all major issues have been settled down." [35]
Obviously, Fukuyama''s theory of liberal democracy and the end of history is quite ridiculous. As the French scholar Derrida, from the realism point of view, sharply criticized Fukuyama''s theory of the end of history as below:
the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realised itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the "end of ideologies" and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.[36]
Such are the facts that the all the man-made disasters of Middle East Wars, the Kosovo crisis and the "9·11" terrorists incident, etc, have shown us more than once that, the current world order and the governing environment are facing unprecedented challenges and crisis. Various social realities have demonstrated to us that we have no reason to hold an over optimistic attitude towards now or the future, or we will only underestimate incidence of disasters, leading to misunderstanding of and blind to the real situation. So we can see that the liberal democracy is just a periodical outcome of the development of human societies, which the human societies will develop critically and move to a higher social target. Fukuyama''s theory that liberal democracy is so-called "the end of history" is totally unsustainable, and his "end theory" is an ultra argument of "political order".
3.Justice spirit of constitutional order
Behind the above phenomena, another phenomenon that attention shall be paid to, is that in many countries, when a crisis or turbulence occurs, there is always a set of mechanism and power controlling the direction of reforming movement and in fact playing a role of order construction. Like the presidential impeachment occurred in Korea, the trial procedure and the court decision of the Korea national constitutional court undoubtedly provided a rational measure of mediation, so the social turbulence that annoyed Korea politics for a moment finally ended and the political order was maintained. Bhutan''s democracy was realized under the guidance of elites. The hundreds years of hereditary monarchy announced its end through a constitutional revolution, which was of earthshaking significance under a placid surface, and the country achieved the transformation from the hereditary monarchy to the parliamentary democracy. The revolution of Nepal happened during extraordinarily drastic dissension of political power, involving huge interference of international community, fierce competition among domestic political parties and groups, as well as the great pressure from civil populace. Consequently, the revolutionary struggle completely changed the constitutional system of Nepal. However, the situation in Thailand is just opposite. During social changes, the masses, military leaders and government bureaucrats are major force playing game in the turbulent political pattern.
