The End of History?

Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History?" presents a controversial view on how historians and the media will view the past and the future of the world politically. While I think Fukuyama's analysis is original, I believe it is flawed. Fukuyama fails to explain why liberal democracy is the zenith of human socio-political development. There is no logical answer as to why all of human history has been building up to the point of liberal democracy, and that the evolution of human thought will end at this point.

Fukuyama does not take into account that new schools of political thought could arise. Surely, 200 years ago, the idea of a communist or socialist state would have seemed ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, the idea of a democratic state would have seemed equally silly. By not taking into account that a greater political ideal could trump liberal democracy, Fukuyama's argument becomes greatly flawed.

Finally, given the relative youth of liberal democracy (only about 300 years old), Fukuyama does not address that liberal democracy is still a relatively new concept and is likely to continue evolve, possibly into an ideal that is completely foreign to the people of today.