Arslan Ayan – POLS 4985

Critical Review Paper

The End of History

The West has won. Capitalism has won. Democracy has won… With the demise of the Soviet
Union and the bipolar world, almost all the major problems have now been resolved and all the
nations around the globe are, sooner or later, doomed to become Western-style democracies. Good,
peaceful, prosperous days are coming. This is the world Francis Fukuyama described in an article
he wrote for The National Interest in 1989.

Over the course of the past three decades, much ink has been spilled by a wide range of IR theorists,
analysts regarding the alleged triumph of liberal capitalist democracy, and the Western world. And
a large majority of them has harshly criticized and sometimes even ridiculed Fukuyama’s
prediction that western style liberal democracy is the final form of human government, and the
world is set to enter a “post-historical” realm. However, when Fukuyama first published his
ground-breaking thesis in a world of increasing global integration, and the most significant nations
with rival ideologies were on a path toward political liberalism and capitalism, the End of History
admittedly sounded quite reasonable. In fact, in the 10 years following the Cold War, the world
saw Boris Yeltsin’s unprecedented pro-western stance both economically and politically;1 and
perhaps more importantly the People’s Republic of China’s steady embracement of the tenets of
capitalism; and correspondingly the regression of the major ideologies, namely communism and
fascism as competitors of the liberal democracy. Characterized by fair, free and competitive
elections, separation of powers, the rule of law, human rights, minority rights, civil liberties and
many more; could Liberal political ideology really be the only valid ideology left standing in the
world?

Fukuyama’s answer is straightforward: Yes, it could— indeed all around the world.

1
“For Boris, freedom was not just a word. For him, freedom was the essence of every human being.”
BBCnews. “The Day Boris Yeltsin Said Goodbye to Russia - BBC News.” YouTube, 26 Jan. 2017,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMyAnefL-8&t=20.
The End of History not only tells us about the demise of all other ideologies that pose a challenge
to liberalism, but also bases the whole argument on a neo-Hegelian structure, according to which
the world is in an inevitable transition phrase to American-style human liberty.

For Fukuyama, the End of History comes when the nations of the world come to accept the
superiority of liberal democracy; not when they successfully become Western-style liberal
democracies. In that sense, it would be safe to say that his thesis is structured in accordance with
the realm of ideology and consciousness rather than on the material level. He argues that fascism
and communism had not only been defeated on the material level but, more importantly, had been
defeated in the minds of the people. The advantages and profits that western-liberal democracy
provides, can no longer be ignored and overcome by any other ideology. Triumph of liberal
capitalist democracy is there to stay as its success engraved in the people’s minds. Fukuyama
frames it this way: “The deep defects of socialist economies were evident thirty, forty years ago to
anyone who chose to look. Why was it that these countries moved away from central planning in
the 1980s? […] That change was in no way made inevitable by the material condition was in which
either country found itself on the eve of the reform, but instead came about as the result of the
victory of one idea over another.”

It is, therefore, safe to argue that SSCB/communism lost its war against the US/Capitalism in
people’s mind, long before its actual disintegration in 1991. The virtual disintegration was just the
materialization of what actually happened many years ago. In that sense, many criticism directed at
the End of History do not hold water as they mostly narrow the argument down to regional conflicts,
existing anarchy and instability in specific regions of the world. For instance, Robert Kaplan writes
about local degradations in African countries, in the Middle East, mostly the Turkish-Kurdish issue,
and concludes that a “minority of the human population will be sheltered so as to enter a post-
historical realm; [… while] an increasingly large number of people will be stuck in history, living in
shantytowns…” Even though Kaplan’s argument makes perfect sense in almost every respect, his
attempt to discredit Fukuyama’s thesis largely remains futile. Because, Fukuyama’s argument
focuses on triumph of liberal capitalist democracy in the realm of consciousness. He would
definitely acknowledge the existing Turkish-Kurdish friction, Israeli-Palestine warfare, and many
other regional problems around the world; yet, he would also argue that if Kurds, Palestinians or
any nation someday manage to establish their own state, they would chose to go down the path of
democracy, and economic capitalism instead of creating a fascist or communist state. Today, the
world seems to be experiencing an illiberal wave as nations with depressed economies and
domestic crisis –such as Greece, Turkey, Hungary and even the USA -- have increasingly been
supporting governments with illiberal tendencies. However, no body in these countries would like
to see revival of Soviet-style communism, Hitler-style fascism or Iranian-style Islamic republic.

It has been more than 30 years since the end of the Cold war and for many the World is now a
more violent place than it used to be. Have we in fact reached the end of the history? Is this the
world Fukuyama descripted some three decades ago?

His theory is better at saying what will happen than in saying when it will happen. He makes good
use of historical facts, tracing when and why the major ideologies that used to challenge liberalism,
sustained material and intellectual defeat. Fascism was openly demolished in the Second World
War, while communism’s collapse had been way more painful and taken a longer time. Today, the
power of liberalism/capitalism is far greater than any ideology. The reason behind this success is
that, in contrast to communism, fascism, Islamism or any other ideology, this one actually works
and therefore influence others! To bolster his argument, he delves into the process of economic
and political liberalization in Asia, exploring the transformation of Japan and South Korea, as well
as China to a certain extent. But, Fukuyama is not a starry-eyed utopian. He knows and
acknowledges several times that neither China nor then-Soviet Union, now Russia, is likely to
become Western style liberal societies any time in the foreseeable future. He knows that the end
of history does not mean that the vast bulk of the Third World will no longer be a terrain of conflict,
warfare and instability. Indeed, this is not a requirement for his thesis to materialize as expected
anyway. Fukuyama’s message is clear: “[…] At the end of history it is not necessary that all
societies become successful liberal societies merely that they end their ideological presentations
of representing different and higher forms of human society. […]. Gorbachev has finally permitted
people to say what they had privately understood for many years, namely, that the magical
incantations of Marxism-Leninism were nonsense, that Soviet socialism was not superior to the
West in any respect but was in fact a monumental failure.”

The goal here is, of course, not to deny the flaws in the End of History. Neither space, nor our
existing knowledge would admittedly be sufficient to do such a thing, as there are many evidenced
ways to discredit the whole argument. Between the world that was promised by Fukuyama and the
one we have now, is admittedly a great discrepancy. It is no secret that free market has significantly
increased the gap between rich and poor in the past twenty years; China has opened it economy to
the capitalist world and doing great amount of business with the Western world, however, it is a
clear proof that wealth is possible without freedom2; the Hegel-anticipated world in which “the
arts flourish and virtue reigns” is nowhere near to come3; and many more other examples can be
given to discredit the thesis. Moreover, the passing of time that showed that countries like Russia
Hungary, Turkey, Iran, and majority of the Arab World have managed to obtain wealth without
embracing political liberalism with open arms. Increasing ideological and religious conflicts in
almost every single parts of the world, rise of Islamist radicalism, nationalism and therefore
terrorism, since the end of Cold War, have also given enormous advantages to those who make a
study of discrediting Fukuyama’s thesis.

History is obviously not over. However, Liberalism’s greatest rival, Communism in its Marxist-
Leninist form, had ceased to exist as a practical ideal for how to organize society, and the liberal-
capitalist world has managed to dissuade billions of minds from communism, fascism and other
ideologies. The partial validity of the Fukuyama’s thesis is indeed best verified by the Bulgaria’s
deposed Communist leader, Todor Zhivkov: “If I had to do it over again, I would not even be a
Communist. And if Lenin were alive today, he would say the same thing.”

Communism, fascism… They amounted to the defeat of the idea…

2
Lee, Timothy Stanley and Alexander. "It's Still Not the End of History." The Atlantic. September 01, 2014.
Accessed September 16, 2017.
3
James Atlas; James Atlas is an editor of this magazine. "WHAT IS FUKUYAMA SAYING? AND TO WHOM IS HE
SAYING IT?" The New York Times. October 21, 1989.