FLASH
Shkruar nga Slavoj Žižek
Three decades after Fukuyama's thesis, the liberal-democratic order is challenged by power politics, nationalisms, and the instrumentalization of the state...
Three decades ago, Francis Fukuyama presented his vision of the end of history: liberal-democratic capitalism represents the best possible form of social organization and, with its discovery, humanity had reached the end point of political evolution, not in the sense that events would stop, but that there would be no more substantial alternatives beyond this model. According to this thesis, all that remained was the gradual fulfillment and full spread of the liberal order throughout the world. Fukuyama himself later revised this initial optimism.
Just three decades later, many observers argue that the global landscape has shifted to the opposite extreme. The dominant idea in some quarters is that the liberal-democratic capitalist order, with its complex architecture of rules intended to guarantee fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, universal healthcare, and public education, has been irreversibly weakened or dismantled.
According to this interpretation, a harsher reality is taking its place, where international relations are determined by direct power, economic, military and political, and where ideologies are treated as rhetorical covers. In this reading, the interventions of great powers are not guided by universal principles, but by concrete strategic and material interests. American foreign policy under the Trump administration has been interpreted by critics as oriented towards economic and geopolitical interests, while the Russian invasion of Ukraine is presented as an attempt to restore the influence of a “Greater Russia”, in the continuation of historical traditions before and after the October Revolution.
The attitude emerging from this climate is often described as disillusioned realism: small states live with constant uncertainty, while great powers exploit their advantage without feeling constrained by universal norms. In this view, the “masks” of human rights and respect for sovereignty have fallen, and the world has entered a post-ideological phase, where the acceptance of bare reality prevails.
However, this conclusion remains debatable. The counterargument emphasizes that today's world is no less ideological; on the contrary, it relies on even stronger narratives to legitimize its actions. Even when politics is presented as purely pragmatic or self-interested, it constructs ideological frameworks to justify power.
The “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement offers a particular vision of the state, sovereignty, and national identity. Critics argue that, while its rhetoric often aims to limit the federal state, in practice it has coexisted with a strengthening of executive power and an expansion of the use of state mechanisms, sometimes in tension with traditional democratic practices. In this context, the debate over freedom of expression has become polarized: supporters see it as a defense of the right to speak without censorship, while opponents consider it a selective application that favors the powerful.
In Russia, the authorities support a Eurasian ideological framework that contrasts traditionalism and community with Western individualistic liberalism. This discourse emphasizes the primacy of family values, national cohesion, and a willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the state. Ideologists close to the Kremlin have articulated the concept of a self-sacrificing Russian citizen, emphasizing that there are values higher than individual life itself.
In Israel, the political dynamics have reflected the growing influence of nationalist and religious currents. International critics have noted the use of biblical references to legitimize policies in Gaza and the West Bank, while Israeli authorities present their actions as a matter of national security and survival.
A significant feature of the current order is the reliance of some states on armed structures or actors operating in gray areas between legality and informality. Haiti constitutes an extreme case of a weakened state, where gangs control most of the territory. The situation in Ecuador and in some regions of Mexico shows that drug cartels can exert a direct influence on public life.
In Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates not only as a military force, but also as an ideological structure and instrument of political control. The case of Mahsa Amini and the protests that followed highlighted the tensions between state institutions and society.
In Russia, the Wagner paramilitary group operated for years as an unofficial instrument of Russian power projection abroad, allowing the government room to formally distance itself from its operations. In 2023, relations between the group and the Kremlin deteriorated, demonstrating the danger such structures pose to the very state that tolerates them.
In Israel and the Palestinian territories, international organizations and the media have reported violence by some Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank. The role of state forces in these incidents remains the subject of ongoing investigation and debate.
In the United States, immigration policies and the role of federal agencies like ICE have deepened political divisions. Critics claim its actions in Democratic-run cities constitute overreach and a heavy-handed use of federal force, while supporters argue it is about law enforcement and maintaining order.
An unusual institutional development has fueled this debate: on February 6, 2026, Donald Trump, as acting president, filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), seeking $10 billion in damages from the federal government that he himself led, alleging that he had been personally harmed. This situation raised numerous legal and ethical questions, as it places the president in the role of both plaintiff and head of the institution being sued. Even some Republican lawmakers expressed reservations about the nature of this case, which creates an unusual institutional configuration.
This situation has been compared by some commentators to a scene from Woody Allen's film "Bananas" (1971), where the main character simultaneously defends and accuses himself in court. What was once presented as a film satire is now used as a metaphor for the tensions between personal power and institutional structures.
The debate over the end of the liberal order and its transformation remains open. Some interpret this phase as the collapse of previous illusions, while others argue that ideologies have not disappeared, but have been reconfigured and become more intertwined with the direct exercise of power. In this sense, the main challenge lies not only in the balance of power, but in the way in which power seeks and finds ideological justification to reproduce itself.
* Note : Slavoj Žižek is a Slovenian neo-Marxist philosopher, cultural theorist, and public intellectual. He is also the International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London, the Global Distinguished Professor of German at New York University, a professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School, and a senior fellow at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana. He works primarily in continental philosophy (especially Hegelianism, psychoanalysis, and Marxism) and political theory, as well as in film criticism and theology.
Lini një Përgjigje