The End of History?!

I found this article fascinating! I enjoy thinking about history and the future of mankind, so the idea that we are actually at the end of history in terms of ideology kind of hit me. I think Fukuyama is right when he says that liberal democracy is the ultimate type of government. It's important that Fukuyama states this is true only on the level of ideology and many countries might take a detour before getting there.

Fukuyama is right that in theory the leaders of every country know deep down that liberal democracy would be the best for people. The reason for not leading a country this way is corruption and greediness from the side of politicians and international pressure from superpowers.

To back up my statement that Fukuyama was right, I would bring up the Avant-Garde movements in arts from 1900 till 1950. These movements had often nothing in common, no united vision about the world or arts. Artists formed a whole variety of groups to try to find an explanation for the horrors of this era (starting with the WW I), but they couldn't find a single idea that would represent everyone's viewpoint equally. When Fukuyama said at the end of his article that the end of history means the decline of arts and theatre, I think he was right in the sense that it's hard to say anything new or groundbreaking nowadays that everyone agrees with. (I'm sorry if I bore you with this art thing, but I'm a Theatre major as well, so I could go on for hours...)

So, now that I sort of explained why I think Fukuyama was right, I'm going to try to explain why many countries don't work as liberal democracies. The reason: because we are human beings. As you said on class, there will be never total freedom and liberalism, because it would lead to anarchy. And people will always be greedy and politicians will probably appreciate money and power more than the happiness of people.

And, just one quick comment to back up my idea about superpowers orchestrating the world's political landscape. How come that the US was eager to occupy Iraq to "free the poor people" in the name of democracy, equality, freedom and human rights? (Even though 2 million Iraqis have fled the country so far and those refugees have to live now in even greater poverty in neighboring countries, not talking about the lack of schooling and health care.) And how came that no one invaded Zimbabwe during the elections in the summer?! Wasn't Mugabe jeopardizing human rights as well? Maybe because Zimbabwe is a poor country with no oil reserves, it means that there's no point in saving people's rights and lives... And just one last remark: isn't it interesting that US officials ended up giving advice to the Iraqi government on the oil deal when the reserves were opened up in the summer?