francis fukuyamas the end of history poses for us a fascinating question what if our systems of government are as good as they can possibly be what if it doesn't get any better than this what if human history has peaked does it always feel this way no it does not but what if this what if all of this is the best we can do what if we're living at the end of history and that's just fine so in 1989 francis fukuyama wrote this essay for the national interest called the end of history with a question and his argument was bold and has been powerfully influential fukuyama argues that liberal democracy at the end of the 20th century had defeated all of its rivals that there was no real ideological political rival for the liberal democratic model now before we go further what do we mean by liberal democracy so a democracy is just a government where the majority rules a liberal democracy is a government ruled by the majority but which also protects individual rights so through constitutions or charters liberal democracies protect individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority liberal democracies also tend to separate powers so that no one group or office has total authority they provide constitutional protections for human rights and they tend to favor free market economies because one of the rights they are committed to protecting is the right to private property that's liberal democracy and again fukuyama argues at the end of the 20th century liberal democracy had basically won the debate fascism had been defeated in the second world war and communism the only real rival left was about to collapse with the fall of the soviet union this is what fukuyama means by the end of history he doesn't mean time is going to stop there will still be events there will still be turmoil conflict all these things will still continue to happen but fukiyam argued that real substantial radical political progress had basically reached its end point liberal democracy is the regime we'd been waiting for but what does that mean how could fukuyama even make that claim what evidence does he have to support this well fukuyama's position at the time was backed by empirical data at the end of the 20th century liberal democracy was on the rise more and more countries were abandoning other political models to adopt liberal democracy fukuyama was able to demonstrate that democracy was the most popular regime in the same way we demonstrate that you know a certain kind of soda was the most popular brand people were choosing democracy over its competitors but his other argument of defense of this is based on an account of human nature fukuyama argues that liberal democracy is the regime that is most in accord with human nature with what we need and desire and want now we can trace fukuyama's account of human nature all the way back to the ancients back to plato he employs a vision of human psychology that has multiple parts plato advanced the theory of what's sometimes called the tripartite soul the basic idea is that your soul or psyche is divided into three parts there's a part of you that's rational there's a part of you that's just desiring it's it's your appetites and then there's this other part and that's your spirited or thymotic part it's a part of you that isn't quite rational it doesn't really have to do with the needs of the body it's the part of you that likes to win it's the part of you that wants recognition and respect in fact you might want those things irrationally and you might pursue those things at the expense of your bodily needs fukuyama leans heavily on hegel and in particular kohev's reading of hegel and his emphasis on this hegelian idea of respect and recognition he argues that it's through the state and ultimately the liberal democratic state that we can most effectively satisfy this desire for recognition other political models don't satisfy this need as effectively and so they fail our desire for human dignity for for recognition of our essential humanities is maybe best exemplified in liberal democracies by the enshrining of human rights a regime that acknowledges your right to free speech your right to vote your right to the security of person your your right to freedom of religion those are all ways by which the liberal democratic regime recognizes you and your essential human dignity now we might say how come if this regime respects my dignity i so often feel trampled on or i see people persecuted and oppressed all around me well fukiyama never says that liberal democracies are perfect or that they're utopias they aren't he simply says that they are the model of regime that is most likely to satisfy our needs but insofar as these regimes don't satisfy our needs don't fulfill their promise to respect our dignity mostly the solution is for them to be better liberal democracies so our solution to a flawed liberal democracy is usually more liberal democracy at least that's fukiyama's argument and listen insofar as you argue or believe that democracies are more fair or more equal than say a monarchy or a tyranny then you kind of agree with fukuyama however the liberal democratic world order may not be as secure as it once seemed for example fukuyama suggested in the late 80s that liberal democracy had essentially solved the class problem how's that going the enormous wealth gap between the super rich and the rest of us threatens to undermine the basic principles of liberal democracy and because of this extraordinary unprecedented gap between the rich and the rest it's no wonder that a lot of people are actually giving communism another look moreover we've also seen modern democracies flirt with fascism in recent years one of the problems that fukuyama does recognize about liberal democracies is that they're very good at making us comfortable and insofar as they make us comfortable we don't really feel much need to do anything bold or great or even meaningful and if we lose a sense of meaning a sense of purpose in political life then we may tumble into nihilism and from nihilism into fascism in the absence of meaningful political action of of doing things with purpose anything great or extraordinary in the absence of those things then fascism which promotes unity and conflict starts to recommend itself to us fascism is expert at creating enemies and persuading us that we can be part of some great historical enterprise and in certain liberal democratic contexts that can be a very seductive offer fukuyama argued that all of the problems we see in in contemporary liberal democracies economic injustice racism sexism all of these things might ultimately eventually be solved by the expansion of rights and freedoms to more and more groups and and the more perfect refinement of liberal democracies and maybe that's true maybe that's the thing we ought to hold out hope for maybe we can invent some new kind of regime that will satisfy human beings in unprecedented kinds of ways or maybe this is the best we've got hey if you're interested in political theory or political philosophy i make videos about that stuff you can check them out over here otherwise thanks very much talk to you soon