To me as a layperson, it certainly seems like the rise of demagogues from Duterte to Trump show that Fukuyama’s “end of history” concept was at best premature and quite possibly outright wrong. But I’m not a heavy thinker and certainly not a credentialed academic. How has the concept fared amongst those who actually do the heavy intellectual lifting required to have a considered opinion on the topic?
(This should probably be a Great Debate topic, with me staking out a claim, but honestly, while I have a hunch that the concept has not stood the test of time, there’s no way I’m prepared to defend the proposition with facts and weighty ideas. So IMHO it is.)
He held the opinion that liberal democracy is the highest possible form of government. That’s a fine opinion to hold but unconvincing in having any significance. Also, the phrase ‘end of history’ is not interpreted to mean what he thinks it is by rational people which should tell you this was something mainly accepted by pretentious pseudo-intellectuals.
As i remember Fukuyama’s thesis was partly a rehashed form of Hegel. From a Hegelian point of view, the statement of end of history could simply mean that the desirability of liberal democracy is uncontested. The fact that many countries still devolved temporarily into illiberal dictatorships does not gainsay that thesis as long as the citizens still wish for a democracy.
That is why it is the end of history: there is no new ideal form of government arising. The fact that there are a lot of wars and illiberal governments does not falsify this (in spite of what a lot of shallow critics seem to believe). Contrast this with ancient times in which people sincerely believed in the unavoidability or desirability of a theocracy.
However, even in this interpretation, the thesis of the end of history may be up for revision. There is an interesting line of argument that liberal democracy as currently conceived is not ideal, and should give way to more collective-oriented forms of government, such as seem to be found in Russia and China. While I don’t know the details of this debate, it does seem to undercut the idea that liberal democracy is uncontested.
Even Fukuyama has changed his ideas these days! 
He’s come up with a brand new theory that explains everything and anything.
The demand for recognition, Fukuyama says, is the “master concept” that explains all the contemporary dissatisfactions with the global liberal order: Vladimir Putin, Osama bin Laden, Xi Jinping, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, gay marriage, ISIS , Brexit, resurgent European nationalisms, anti-immigration political movements, campus identity politics, and the election of Donald Trump. It also explains the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Chinese Communism, the civil-rights movement, the women’s movement, multiculturalism, and the thought of Luther, Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, and Simone de Beauvoir. Oh, and the whole business begins with Plato’s Republic. Fukuyama covers all of this in less than two hundred pages.
Yes, sure. 
I liked and admired what I called the “Weak Fukuyama Principle,” but had no use for strong interpretations of it. I think that there will be a continued growth of real democracy in the world, yes, with setbacks and pitfalls. Three steps forward and two back. We’re in an “1848” epoch right now, where the forces of Reaction are strong. But The People don’t like dictators, and small, quiet revolutions can be effective.
We aren’t going back to 1750 – nor to 1945. We’ve made a ton of progress since then, and we’re gonna keep it…and build on it.
Thanks for the link, GreenWyvern. I found that article most informative.