The 1789 Discourse: Fukuyama and "End of History"

Stephane Grangier/Corbis

One of the most important and influential works of modern political philosophy is the “End of History and the Last Man.” It was published in 1992 and was based on an article by Francis Fukuyama written in 1989. 

Many have seen it as a work that celebrated the triumph of liberal democracy over the forces of communism and authoritarianism. However, Fukuyama has always been quick to point out that this is not the case. The “End of History and the Last Man” is not a work of triumphalism that many have read and celebrated it as. Though 1992 marks the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, this was not necessarily the case when Fukuyama wrote his article. Though it may seem obvious now, when the article was written, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc was not a clear guarantee. In fact, the Berlin Wall only came down, months after the article was written. Many have wrote off Fukuyama’s work as being outdated in the 21st century and claim that its predictions did not come to fruition. A close reading will show that the “End of History,” is not a work of triumphalism, but that it simultaneously serves as a warning.

The “End of History” is not like Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” in that it does not envision a shining utopia that is to be brought about through some kind of transformational revolution. Instead, it argues that a liberal democracy is simply the best form of government that man can conceive. If things go right in the world, states are faced with two options- the Japanese model or the European Union model. There bureaucracy and politics in supra will ultimately be active, however dull. 

This is not the revolutionary utopia envisioned by Marx and other thinkers, but rather a future full of dull governance that leads to a content and politically active populace. Fukuyama did not see this as a revolutionary event that was inevitable, but as something that was simply the best alternative.

 Fukuyama points this out in modern talks and lectures where he presents the alternative to liberal democracy- the Chinese model. This model that has roots in both Marxism-Leninism and imperial Chinese Confucianism and has found a way to be economically successful without embracing democracy. 

This above model may be efficient and has even found a way to be capitalist while not being liberal at the same time- but it is not necessarily the option that people want. Further, it is a model that crushes dissent through the use of violence and suppression. 

Once again, this is a model used by a state to crush religious and ethnic minorities and to quiet democracy and dissent. Still, the aforementioned is a possible future, but it is one that most people wish to thwart.

This makes “The End of History” more important than ever. It is not predicting that the future is one of and for liberal democracies, rather it is describing a world where the liberal and democratic model is the best model for government. 

Fukuyama has recently been describing a world that has become more and more hostile to the fundamentals of the liberal democratic state. The two future models that Fukuyama predicted for liberal democracy are not the strong and vibrant systems they were predicted to be. Japan has suffered from slow economic growth and recession for decades and there does not seem to be any indication that this ends anytime soon.

 E.U. politics have become anything, but boring. Outside pressures, like Russian intrusions and the migrant crisis, along with internal instances, like Brexit and the rise of populist movements, have placed enormous political and bureaucratic strains on the system. As Dr. David Runciman says, E.U. politics is anything, but dull at the moment.

Fukuyama has noted that the threat to the liberal and democratic order comes from two sources- one external and one internal. The first is the dangerous alternative to the liberal model, the Chinese model. The Chinese model has shown to be effective and prosperous, unlike the previous Marxist-Leninist models, but it it still one that is inherently authoritarian. 

The other comes in the form of  the populist movements. These populist movements strive to bring more democracy, but in the process they erode the foundations of liberalism. They undermine the institutions that a modern and liberal state needs to properly function. By giving power away from them and to the populace as a whole, the state loses its ability to govern. The terrifying “tyranny of the majority” ensues. Fukuyama points to India, where a liberal society with multiple religious, ethnic, and linguistic traditions has been decayed and reshaped into one defined by the Hindu religion and the Hindi language by the populist and nationalist Narendra Modi and the B.J.P. 

In the west, institutions are eroded by those who feel “left behind.” They blame the loss of the jobs on immigrants and free trade and vote in populists who promise to bring back the “glory days.” 

The problem is that oftentimes these problems were unavoidable and by blaming immigrants or institutions, these populists only succeeded in instigating violence and chaos. 

These problems are real though and they need to be addressed. A new national identity itself needs to evolve to address the underlying psychological issues. While the days of racial or ethnic homogeny may be gone, a new liberal or civic understanding of nation is possible. 

As Fukuyama argues, the American left need to embrace a civic or even ideological understanding of American nationhood. It is from this new understanding of nationhood from that change must stem. 

The Hobbesian state is not going away- nor is a Marxist revolution that brings forth the transformation of society coming. But the world is changing; and while the state may not change, the idea of what a nation is must change. 

The failures of the E.U. simultaneously show that the idea of the nation and national identity is too strong to erode away yet and that a global identity can be possible. However akin to a Marxist belief that capitalism must first replace feudalism before socialism and then communism can occur, society needs a new civic and ideological nationalism is needed before the new “state” can emerge. This interpretation is the reform Hobbesian state needs right now. Though some may be disappointed by it and feel that it does not go far enough, this middle path is a closer step to securing the End of History.