<P> According to Fukuyama, since the French Revolution, democracy has repeatedly proven to be a fundamentally better system (ethically, politically, economically) than any of the alternatives . </P> <P> The most basic (and prevalent) error in discussing Fukuyama's work is to confuse "history" with "events". Fukuyama claims not that events will stop occurring in the future, but rather that all that will happen in the future (even if totalitarianism returns) is that democracy will become more and more prevalent in the long term, although it may suffer "temporary" setbacks (which may, of course, last for centuries). </P> <P> Some argue that Fukuyama presents "American - style" democracy as the only "correct" political system and argues that all countries must inevitably follow this particular system of government . However, many Fukuyama scholars claim this is a misreading of his work . Fukuyama's argument is only that in the future there will be more and more governments that use the framework of parliamentary democracy and that contain markets of some sort . Indeed, Fukuyama has stated: </P> <P> The End of History was never linked to a specifically American model of social or political organization . Following Alexandre Kojève, the Russian - French philosopher who inspired my original argument, I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States . The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military . </P>

Francis fukuyama the end of history the national interest (summer 1989)