History has now ended, declare such apologists for the neo-liberal economic status quo of globalization as Dinesh D'Sousa.

Proponents of the singularity make similar claims, that there is nothing more to do. All that can be done, or need be done--is. The world is accelerating in the only possible direction, and get out of the way, or we'll get you out of the way, or help out.

Nothing more for us to do but accept it.

The only reason to make such absolute claims, is to take on a finality for one's beliefs, and thumb one's nose at everyone else:

Your view is shit! Only I have the answer!

I am about to offer a refutation, or a different version, of a concept that is not covered fully in its original form. This is the concept of the "End of History", first formulated by Francis Fukuyama in his book "The End of History and the Last Man", published in 1992, with its central thesis that with the fall of communism, the idea of "liberal democracy" was the final point of history and no other forms could challenge it. Events would still happen, there would still be one-off wars or revolutions or natural disasters, but nothing could challenge "liberal democracy". And through the 1990s, it seemed he might be right!

At least, that is the usual summary. I offer it as a paragraph explanation before continuing my own idea, which is somewhat orthogonal.

I don't know if you have spent much time in the developing world, or spent much time talking with people who live there. I have done both, in a way. I currently live in Costa Rica, a country with strong democratic traditions, an open society, and a diversifying economy, but that still has poverty and infrastructure problems. I have also lived, in the past few years, in Chile for three years, and Mexico for six weeks. I also work with many students from Latin America, and many from the Middle East. It is a big world, and I have only seen a part of it, but I can say I've seen more than most.

There is a big swath of the world, exemplified by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) that have made autocracy work. This also includes parts of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. In the 20th centuries, dictatorships were noted for going truly insane, as the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Notice that for the most part, dictatorships have wizened up. There are a few exceptions, but a lot of autocracies have mastered a formula:

  • Have a civil service that is efficient and non-corrupt enough that you can keep infrastucture and key national industries going. The government can still be corrupt at the top level, but it should be confined to skimming off the top, not to the point where airplanes start crashing into the ground because someone was siphoning their fuel.
  • Have a small majority, or maybe a plurality of the population who enjoy the material success of the regime, and also have the education and expertise to keep things running.
  • Allow just enough human rights and diversity to allow innovation and free movement, especially of the above population. And of course, enough to attract intertrashionalist visitors to your swanky, tacky tourist attractions. Gotta keep hosting the World Cup!
  • Confine aggression against weaker neighbors, and avoid any violence that would upset the balance.
Right now, this is the form of government and society in a number of nations, from the aforementioned BRICS nations to smaller nations such as Vietnam, Egypt or Mexico. Of course, these nations are not the same: Mexico has a large problem with organized crime, something that Vietnam does not. But the basic idea is that despite denying full freedom and economic progress to their citizens, they are managing to hold it together. the wheels are not coming off, and in some cases some of these countries were able to deal with external threats, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, much better than "developed democracies".

So the question is...is this how history ends? With autocracies learning how to function enough to provide basic services for the smallest number of their citizens? Because not only has this become the standard across medium income countries, the recent election in the United States shows that a sizable people of people in the United States approve as well. (And somewhat of an irony: Donald Trump, who came to fame decrying Muslims and Mexicans, is creating a United States that bears a resemblance to the Gulf States and Latin America). European nations, despite their xenophobia towards the Middle East, have decided to base their nations on ethnic identity, and not on ideas like universal rights.

So is this how it ends? Is this the end of history, with nations devolving into autocracies supported by bare pluralities of their citizens, and where the ability to keep the trains running on time means that there is never a crisis that can cause real change? Where people will be just comfortable enough, and have enough bread and circuses, to continue on their way? Is the world entering a period of dreary stability, only punctuated by small wars when a dictator destroys a smaller nation or minority group to feed his ego?

I don't actually think this is the case, for reasons that are too complicated to write here, but I do think that this is much closer to the case than Francis Fukuyama's original vision. If there is an "end of history" right now, it involves the stability of autocracies, not the triumph of democracy.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.