Do you agree or disagree with Francis Fukuyama's thesis in "The End of History?"
Please provide an analysis of Francis Fukuyama's, The End of History? He is not arguing the end of world events. Be careful not to simply summarize his arguments, this is not analysis; you should develop a thesis statement and use evidence from his article to support it and please write 500-650 words and please be concise in your analysis.
What Francis Fukuyama was saying in this famous essay from 1989 is that there was no longer any competition between political ideologies the way that there had been for most of the course of history. He was arguing that this competition had ended and that liberal democracy was now accepted as the only form of government that has great legitimacy. I would tend to agree with Fukuyama, though I have some misgivings about doing so.
Since communism fell, not every country has become democratic. Instead, you have many countries that are authoritarian (Russia and China, for instance) as well as many countries that are theocratic (Iran and Saudi Arabia). One might argue that these ideologies are now in competition with liberal democracy.
However, I would agree with Fukuyama that these ideologies do not have much legitimacy among people in general. These are not ideologies that many people find appealing. Therefore, these ideologies are not going to be able to compete with liberal democracy the way that communism did.
Perhaps we can see the current events in the Middle East as proof of this concept. In the Middle East today, we have major demonstrations against authoritarianism and in favor of some form of liberal democracy. This implies that liberal democracy has won the argument in the minds of most people and that the end of history has truly happened.