It is important to note that although Fukuyama believes that history has come to an end because no more progress of political ideology can be made, he does not mean that the world will be free from political and social problems. He makes an important distinction that seems to be missed by critics such as David Michael Smith. Fukuyama understands that it is foolish to proclaim that the end of history is upon us while not all nations and people have reached the point that he idealizes in western democracy and society. He believes that although western liberal democracy is the final form of human government, the victory of this system is in the realm of ideas and consciousness. Liberal democracy has not yet been fully developed in the real world. It has not reached all places and people, and even those places that it has reached; it may not be fully or correctly implemented and practiced. Fukuyama says that some nations are still “stuck in history.”
The reasons that Fukuyama believes that western liberal democracy is the endpoint of history and why other political and social systems are not are numerous. First, the main point where communism, fascism, and socialism fail is that they do not fulfill some basic human psychological needs. The needs that they do not fulfill and that liberal democracy does fulfill are the innate desires of humans to have possessions, and be equal to others. Within this need for equality, Fukuyama believes that the other governmental systems will and have failed because they are imperfect vehicles for freedom. Naturally, it follows that Fukuyama also implies that liberal democracy is the best of all systems to foster freedom, so it has beaten all others. Democracy for Fukuyama cannot and will not ever be succeeded by anything better in the future either, because it is perfectly suited for the desires and needs of men.
Despite all of Fukuyama’s overwhelming enthusiasm for liberal democracy, he does take an interesting Nietzchean look at the time in which the pinnacle of history moves from the realm of ideas into the real world. History, for Fukuyama, is different from the present because there is no longer a competition of ideologies. Science and reason has driven mankind forward from the times when there was fierce military and mercantile competition, along with ideological competition, towards liberal democracy. The result of this being realized in the real world will be a “very sad time,” according to Fukuyama; which is in interesting contrast to the rest of his optimism for Western society. He believes that mankind will become so content and so happy with the state of things and its own perfection that we will atrophy without struggle. Humans will become dull and complacent, spiritual life will die, and artistry and philosophy will no longer prove to be necessary endeavors. We will become what Nietzche described as the “last man.” This evolution, should it come to pass, Fukuyama suggests that it may provide the impetus for a desire to return to the strife and competition of the past. This could result in the reincarnation of the “first man,” or the master in a master to slave relationship. The liberal, democratic societies could potentially become enslaved by these “first men” in their complacency, thus sparking a return to the beginning of history and starting Fukuyama’s path towards the pinnacle again.
Fukuyama presents an interesting argument, and one that is extraordinarily convincing if it is seen from a certain viewpoint. However, there are some weaknesses that cannot be ignored. The most pressing and apparent question that arises is: is Fukuyama too speculative? Man is naturally very limited in vision and knowledge, so is trying to predict that there is no future beyond liberal democracy a bit fanciful, if not arrogant? It appears that Fukuyama is making himself at times into more of a prophet than a political scientist or a historical materialist. It would seem that the progress of history is perhaps better discerned by looking backwards into its past, not into the future. Another problem that goes along with the previous one is that Fukuyama’s theory assumes what must and will eventually happen by predicting the future, and it assumes that what actually does happen is insignificant. He characterizes events such as World War II and the Holocaust as excursions from the main path of history, that have come to an end and are largely insignificant in the grander picture of the road to liberal democracy. Events that might serve to contradict his ideas, like poverty and conflict in nations that have adopted democracy can forever be dismissed as exceptions to the rule or evidence that we simply haven’t fully made the transition from the world of ideas to the real world. Fukuyama’s theory is quite convenient in this way, it is attractive to those who share his viewpoint concerning the superiority of liberal democracy, but it remains open ended and non-committal enough to quickly and easily answer almost any criticism with a standardized response. This does not destroy Fukuyama’s ideas, but perhaps his theory needs to be reexamined; and according to more recent reports and research, he seems to feel the same way himself.
One reason that Fukuyama’s argument may need to be reexamined is that it does not seem as strong today as it did in 1989. Despite the relatively short length of time between then and now, the reasons why his article and book were so compelling and incendiary in 1989 cannot be ignored. Fukuyama was writing these theories at a time when the world was witnessing the fall of communism worldwide, as well as a time when democracy was the political system that was flourishing and had triumphed over communist nations like the Soviet Union and China. Of course, an argument that points to the superiority of the American political system will seem extremely strong at a time when all of the evidence seems to support it. With the recent actions of the United States government, and the distaste for western culture and politics throughout the world, the American political system hardly seems like a pinnacle of human experience. However, looking at the issue from another perspective, one could argue that Fukuyama is as relevant as ever; that we are progressing ever nearer to the state of the “last man,” and that we are closer to being enslaved by a new generation of “first men.” Or, conversely, one could simply argue that we haven’t fully made the shift to the realization of liberal democracy in the real world yet and that recent events are simply excursions off of the path of history or insignificant exceptions to the rule. Either way, Fukuyama’s ideas provide several interesting and worthwhile perspectives from which to examine Marxism, communism, democracy, and present day existence.
