Other major empirical evidence includes the elimination of interstate warfare in South America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe among countries that moved from military dictatorships to liberal democracies.Īccording to several studies, the end of the Cold War and the subsequent increase in the number of liberal democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons. (See also list of wars between democracies.) Part of the difficulty in assessing the theory is that democracy as a widespread global phenomenon emerged only very recently in human history, which makes generalizing about it difficult. This theory has faced criticism, with arguments largely resting on conflicting definitions of "war" and "mature democracy". Arguments in favour Īn argument in favour of Fukuyama's thesis is the democratic peace theory, which argues that mature democracies rarely or never go to war with one another.
The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.
Following Alexandre Kojève, the Russian-French philosopher who inspired my original argument, I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization. Fukuyama's argument is only that in the future there will be more and more governments that use the framework of parliamentary democracy and that contain markets of some sort. However, many Fukuyama scholars claim this is a misreading of his work. Some argue that Fukuyama presents "American-style" democracy as the only "correct" political system and argues that all countries must inevitably follow this particular system of government. Fukuyama claims not that events will stop occurring in the future, but rather that all that will happen in the future (even if totalitarianism returns) is that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer "temporary" setbacks (which may, of course, last for centuries). The most basic (and prevalent) error in discussing Fukuyama's work is to confuse "history" with "events". There can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system.Īccording to Fukuyama, since the French Revolution, liberal democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives.
The end of history means liberal democracy is the final form of government for all nations.Pessimism about humanity's future is warranted because of humanity's inability to control technology.Events still occur at the end of history.History should be viewed as an evolutionary process.3.6 Split between democracy and capitalism.3.4 Failure of civil society and political decay.3.2 Radical Islam, tribalism, and the "Clash of Civilizations".
0 kommentar(er)
