An End to the ‘End of History’ Debates

The gist of francis Fukuyama's article ‘The End of History?’ is quite plain. The twentieth century that began full of self-confidence in the ultimate triumph of Western liberal democracy seems at its close to be returning full circle to where it started: not to an “end of ideology” or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, as earlier predicted, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism. What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. This does not imply the end of international conflict per se, but the likelihood of large-scale conflict between States will diminish.<br>Fukuyama's thesis would represent the advent of an ideologically homogeneous world. However, this change in the present political structure of the world is not the supersession of the sovereign States system itself. It would represent simply a transition from one phase of the sovereign States system (ideological heterogeneity) to another (ideological homogeneity). So, even if the world rests upon a single ideology, it would not reduce or eliminate conflicts of interest among States.<br>Fukuyama's prediction, which is highly regarded by the general public, is not completely reliable. First, he considers Stalinism as the whole of marxism and does not think about the possibility of other versions. Second, the present world is not ideologically homogeneous. Even the Muslim world, which is supposed to be a universal, homogeneous one, is filled with a large variety of competing ideologies. Third, the basic structure of the sovereign States system remains unchanged after the collapse of communism. Fourth, the uncertainty of the system, therefore, continues, and so history does not come to an end.<br>For all its drawbacks, Fukuyama's article was received favourably in Japan. For one thing, what is fascinating in his article is that Fukuyama has made a very confident prediction about a future for liberal democracy and based it on the authorities of historical philosophy, Hegel and Kojève. According to him, all human history is a phenomenal form of human self-consciousness. It may be too simple, but that simplicity has appealed to people. For another, it seems likely that his article may have appealed to the historical awareness of Japanese people: that is, their tendecy to admire vigour or natural force.<br>History is not a good tool for predicting the future. If it were the case, it would not be necessary to commit oneself either way over it. Whether the fortunes of socialism and history have come to a dead chilly end or not you never know; he may be right.