In his thesis "The End of History", Francis Fukuyama contends that the end of the Cold War signified the end of humankind's political ideological progression, and the arrival of Western liberal democracies as the last and ultimate form of human government. Whilst Fukuyama maintains that the 'end of history' doesn't necessarily entail the end of 'events' or challenges to liberal governance, he claims that the Western liberal democracy will be increasingly prevalent and and the best political alternative amongst countries of the world. Fukuyama published his thesis in 1989, at a time of great political upheaval and societal change, so have his premonitions come true? Did we in fact reach the 'end of history' as we knew it?
Almost 20 years after Fukuyama published his premonitions, the world is a remarkably different place. Whilst some threats to democracy such as communism have declined markedly, for example in the rapidly industrializing and increasingly capitalistic China, others such as Islamic fundamentalism and theocratic states have flourished. However, as Fukuyama points out, the alternative of an Islamic theocracy as a form of governance does not hold wide appeal to those outside of the Muslim faith, which weakens its chances as a global form of governance. Fukuyama maintains that democracies are more successful due to the reduced amount of conflicts they encounter, thus other political systems that could have challenged liberalism, such as fascism, failed as they promoted conflict, rather than avoided it.
Whilst I agree that there does not seem to be an alternative form of government at this moment in history that will ever prove to be as widely utilized and acknowledged as successful as that of the liberal democracy, I could not state with as much certainty as Fukuyama that there would never again be another form of government that would challenge it. Certainly, before and during the Cold War, other forms of government such as communism appeared to be viable political alternatives, to the extent that democratic nations such as the US were anxious about their expansion worldwide. I believe that Fukuyama does promote democracies as an almost unbeatable form of government, against which many other forms fail in comparison. However, for him to state in 1989 that history would merely end with such a consensus and never again become challenged is short sighted at best. Islamic theocracies promote enough worry from democratic nations for us as citizens to seriously believe that they do not promote a challenge to existing ideologies, including that of government.
Although Fukuyama makes a point of saying that he does not believe that 'events' will cease to occur in the future, he maintains that they will be transitory, rather than permanent, threats to the dominance of democratic governance. However, he does not give time frames for such temporary threats, which could last for many years. It could be considered then, that such a period of time is not a transitory event, but the creation of a new era in a constantly evolving and changing history.
Whilst Fukuyama sells democracies as an effective and preferable form of governance, he cannot determine the infinite political history of all humankind. Before the Cold War, many alternative forms of government were offered, many of which were considered to be the best method, as Fukuyama believes of democracies. Who knows how or what people will think twenty, one hundred or a thousand years from now? To simply state that political evolution has reached its mortal end is to reject the evolution that it has and will continue to experience, and reduce any challenges to the political schema as simple blips on the larger, predetermined historical radar.
