To the End of History

Abstract

More than 30 years have passed since the article and then the monograph by Francis Fukuyama about the end of history were published. The author repeatedly pointed out the incorrect interpretation of the main ideas expressed in the book. Fukuyama subsequently insisted that the end of history, understood as reaching the final point in the evolution of society through the spread of liberal democracy on a global scale, was articulated by him as a goal of development, and not as an already achieved result. The discourse around the idea of the end of history, thus, was formed partly against the author’s will. The idea lived its own life. Trends of the last few years have actualized a new wave of discussions about the end of history, but now — “The End of the End of History”. The processes of deglobalization, the strengthening of authoritarian political regimes and their influence on the world agenda, the victory of populist forces in elections in Western countries — all this is perceived by Fukuyama's critics as a sign of the end of the end of history. We believe that the conclusion about the end of the end of history is hasty. The authors developing this thesis build their arguments around criticism of the West. Accordingly, the end of history, understood as the total spread of Western-style democracy, was provoked by the West itself. At some points, such an approach will lead to correct results, but it must be borne in mind that we find ourselves in the trap of Orientalism, believing that the dominant right to interpret democratic discourse belongs to the West and depends on the West. A more relevant analytical framework could be the thesis that the characteristic of modernity is not the end of the end of history, but the erosion of the former dominance of the West in the discourse regarding the interpretations of liberalism in economics and democracy in politics.