End OF HISTORY - Francis Fukuyama
In his 1989 article, The End Of History?, Francis Fukuyama boldly set forth a vision of liberalism in the modern world. In 1992, he deepened his arguments in a book of the same name. Where liberalist game theory showcases the practical applications of liberalism, The End of History shows its raw strength as an idea. These pieces by Fukuyama put forth the thesis that humankind has arrived at its final stage of political evolution in the form of liberal democracy. This victory of liberalism, Fukuyama argues, exists as of now only in the world of ideas. In a Hegelian analysis, Fukuyama argues that, with the fall and then dissolution of the Soviet Union, liberalism has no plausible ideological rival. Islamic fundamentalism has none of the universal appeal or domestic stability of capitalist democracy. Communism has failed to produce the dialectic transformation that was promised and has shown that it cannot keep up with the forces of supply and demand in the modern world. The material world still has dictators, failed states, and inter-state conflict, but, in the long run, the world is moving towards the liberalist ideal. Illiberal states and regions are merely those that are "stuck in history". (Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History?", National Interest (summer 1989). http://www.kropfpolisci.com/exceptionalism.fukuyama.pdf (accessed 2/26/2014). The longevity of institutions such as NATO and the EU that confounds realists is crucial evidence supporting Fukuyama's ideas. Moreover, the repeated eruptions of democratic opposition, whether successful in the short term or not, from the Middle East (the Arab Spring) to Eastern Europe (Ukranian rebellion and Russian social activists) exhibits the universal appeal of liberal democracy.
Shallow critics of Fukuyama have argued that the very idea of an end of history is laughable: insofar as humanity will continue to exist and our universe is bound to the movement of time, history cannot end. But these critics miss the point of Fukuyama's writing. His argument is that the history of human sociopolitical organization has come to a resting point with liberal democracy. Liberal democracy has won out in the world of ideals already, and over a long period of time the material world will grow to approximate this ideal. This proclamation is bold, but far more well-supported than most critics realize. If liberal democracy is not the final form of human government, then what could replace it? This question is difficult to answer adequately, and this difficulty in and of itself vindicates much of Fukuyama's reasoning.
Shallow critics of Fukuyama have argued that the very idea of an end of history is laughable: insofar as humanity will continue to exist and our universe is bound to the movement of time, history cannot end. But these critics miss the point of Fukuyama's writing. His argument is that the history of human sociopolitical organization has come to a resting point with liberal democracy. Liberal democracy has won out in the world of ideals already, and over a long period of time the material world will grow to approximate this ideal. This proclamation is bold, but far more well-supported than most critics realize. If liberal democracy is not the final form of human government, then what could replace it? This question is difficult to answer adequately, and this difficulty in and of itself vindicates much of Fukuyama's reasoning.