The often-quoted book The End of History—which I did not read, mind you—comes up again and again for various reasons.

Francis Fukuyama, the famous author, implied that history—conquest, rebellions, tyranny, etc.—would end as we knew it, as mankind largely embraced the liberal ideas of democracy and began to see their benefits.

For a while, it felt inevitable: the whole world would soon become a progressive planet where countries no longer sought to annex or seize lands frivolously. A world where it was understood that all mankind—regardless of race or background—would have equal value.

Such an understanding must have seemed sensible, especially considering the book was written around the time of the Soviet Union’s fall. That moment likely felt like a symbolic and decisive defeat for authoritarianism.

I will argue here that Francis could still be perfectly correct in his assessment—as long as he didn’t specify a timeframe for when this progress would be realized.

Recently, I’ve heard various thinkers criticize Fukuyama’s ideas, calling them delusional and wishful thinking. Their argument is quite simple:

• Russia is somehow more authoritarian now than before.
• China is more authoritarian than ever.
• European and global nations seem to prefer populist, divisive politicians.

The idea that the world is regressing—our democratic institutions, finances, foreign policies, and ethics all decaying or collapsing—is on the rise.

I do not really want to address Fukuyama’s views in particular but the regular day-to-day gym talk or bar talk you might hear. Here’s some stuff I’ve heard paraphrased:

• Countries like Russia and China don’t even want democracy.
• Different countries have different values—what can we really do?
• Everything’s going to shit! We’re due for another big war.
• Look at what the liberals are bringing to us: inflation, Theybies, more immigrants with different values, etc.
• The West and liberals pretend to have the moral high ground while corrupting our youth with LGBT propaganda—no wonder other countries want no part in our ways of life!

All these things fall along a spectrum, where some thoughts feel relatable, while others might sound extreme. But they all point to a few common conclusions:

• Democracy isn’t for everyone.
• Democracy might not even be good for people.
• Democracy causes moral decay.

All of these concerns are valid, and I’d like to share some of my thoughts on them.

“Democracy Isn’t for Everyone”

I first thought seriously about this after watching a video randomly on YouTube: Guinea’s leader defends coups in Africa and rebuffs the West, saying things must change.

In his speech to the UN, Col. Mamady Doumbouya declared,
“It is time to stop lecturing us and stop treating us with condescension like children… The Western model of democracy does not work in Africa, as it was imposed on us and has trouble adapting to our realities.”

This made me realize just how many politicians and leaders claim that democracy “doesn’t work” for the countries they govern—conveniently, as they rise to power through undemocratic means. Of course, there are legitimate reasons why democracy might struggle in certain regions.

Now let’s address Doumbouya’s point about “Western models” of democracy.

The stigma surrounding democracy often revolves around its association with Western origins. Rooted in ancient Athens and later popularized by Western thinkers, democracy is often viewed as a Western concept—a political system the West implicitly claims ownership of.

For Westerners, this heritage might be something to take pride in. For others, it can breed resentment. After all, the only thing worse than being colonized, oppressed, enslaved, or exploited for resources is to be told afterward that the oppressor’s way of life is superior.

It’s like if someone killed your entire family in front of you and then suggested you should start watching the Premier League—because it’s the best soccer league in the world. You’d likely feel less inclined to take their advice.

These lingering resentments cloud our political compasses and influence how we perceive democracy.

Love, Hate, and Historical Grievance

Much like how love makes everything associated with someone feel joyful, hate makes anything connected to someone unbearable.

Let me dumb this down with an example:

Imagine you fall in love with a girl who’s a Swiftie (Taylor Swift SuperFan). When you’re head-over-heels for her, you might find yourself saying, “Damn, I didn’t realize how good a lyricist Taylor Swift is.”

Now fast-forward a few months. The same girl cheats on you and leaves you for someone else. You listen to the same Taylor Swift song again, but this time, you think, “Taylor Swift is a talentless hack. I can’t believe I rated her so highly.”

And then, after even more time passes, you meet someone new and forget all about the Swiftie. Taylor Swift doesn’t bother you anymore, and you return to a neutral opinion: “She’s fine, I guess.”

The time it takes for Taylor Swift to feel neutral again will have some sort of correlation to how long it takes you to get over the Swiftie. 

This same dynamic plays out on a societal level for many countries still processing their historical grievances with the West.

Good Leaders vs. Good Systems

Another common theme among countries skeptical about democracy is their reverence for certain past or current leaders. For some, this admiration borders on worship, while others might just sigh at their leaders’ “questionable” actions and say, “Sometimes you have to do what you have to do as a politician.”

This infatuation with leaders can feel like a mass coping mechanism to rationalize daily frustrations with lackluster governance. In well-functioning democratic systems, however, leaders don’t need to be the stars. Think of it like sports—if you barely notice the referee, they’re probably doing their job well.

Take the United States, which has led the global democratic order for the past century. Despite a lineup of recent presidents who aren’t exactly intellectual giants—Biden, Trump, Bush, Clinton—America has somehow managed to progress, even relatively thrive. Let’s be honest, all these guys come off as out of touch, ethically ambiguous, and yes, definitely nepo-babies. Yet the system has held up.

A good system makes governance resilient enough to survive the occasional less-than-brilliant leader. Sure, no system is perfect, and history is littered with democratically elected tyrants. But at least democracy provides a structure that allows for progress despite a few knuckleheads in office.

This isn’t to say that good leaders don’t matter—or that a charismatic authoritarian couldn’t achieve things a democracy might struggle with. A capable authoritarian could, theoretically, get things done with a speed and efficiency democracies could only dream of. But to succeed, an authoritarian would practically need to be flawless, prioritizing the public over personal gain every time. By contrast, democracy offers a marketplace where citizens and government can meet somewhere in the middle. And while it can make us cynical, it’s comforting to know that authoritarian governments poll their citizens to see how far they can tighten rations before people start revolting.

Absolute power is, after all, a corruptor. So no matter how much we might admire a strong leader, that affection shouldn’t blind us to their human fallibility.

Let’s rank our options:

1. Good Leaders and Good Systems: High democratic integrity, strong constitution, and ethical leaders.
2. Bad Leaders and Good Systems: Solid democracy with cynical, self-absorbed leaders.
3. Good Leaders and Bad Systems: A “noble” authoritarian who insists they know what’s best for everyone.
4. Bad Leaders and Bad Systems: A tyrannical government that treats citizens like economic cogs for the state.

Some might argue that scenario 2 could be worse than scenario 3 in certain contexts, but I’d generally beg to differ.

Islam and Democracy

Now let’s tackle the touchy subject of Islam and democracy, and whether the two can get along. With 1.9 billion Muslims worldwide, that’s over 24% of the global population and, notably, a significant portion of the non-democratic world. This will be an exercise in brevity given the volumes of content on this topic.

Some Muslims argue that democracy is un-Islamic or even haram, while others say it’s an ideal framework for an Islamic society. But, as with most things in Islam, opinions are backed by the Quran and Hadith. And these sources are, unsurprisingly, a bit vague on the specifics of democracy, which wasn’t exactly a common topic in 7th-century Arabia.

In the Hadith—accounts of the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings and actions—there are references to rulers and governance. For instance:

“You will have rulers over you, some you will approve of, and some you will disapprove of. Whoever shows hatred towards them has absolved himself, and whoever turns away from them has saved himself, except those who are content and follow (them).”
(Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1854)

“Whoever sees something from his ruler that he dislikes, let him be patient, for whoever separates from the community even a hand span and dies, dies as in the days of ignorance (Jahiliyyah).”
(Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

These sayings may have been intended to encourage unity and prevent division. But today, they’re as likely to be quoted by oil-rich kings buying yachts and partying with western supermodels as reminders to their subjects to keep calm and carry on.

Could Islam Justify Democracy?

On the other hand, democracy could also be argued for within an Islamic framework, depending on which verses you emphasize. The Quran, like many historical texts, is open to interpretation. 

Abrogation (or Nask) within Islamic Law was common during the life of Muhammad and essentially is the process of the legal code changing and one law overruling the past law. For example, with Alcahol; 

• First, it’s noted that intoxicants have some benefits but that their harms outweigh them (Quran, 2:219).
• Then, Muslims are advised not to pray while intoxicated (Quran, 4:43).
• Finally, intoxicants are prohibited entirely, denounced as “abominations” of Satan’s handiwork (Quran, 5:90-91).

If Islam could see so many adjustments in just two decades of Muhammad’s life, why not continue adapting over 1,400 years?

Kings, Democracy, and the Quran

The Quran could also be interpreted as warning about unchecked power. In Surah An-Naml, verse 34, regarding the Queen Shebah; 

“She said: Lo! kings, when they enter a township, ruin it and make the honour of its people shame. Thus will they do.” (Quran, 27:34) | Pickthall Translation

This statement “They really do so” has been interpreted by many prominent Sunni scholars like At-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi to be Allah confirming the statement of the Queen about Kings ruining lands and destroying the honor of its people. Allah approves the statement and doubles down on it. Grammatically as well, in Arabic, this is what it would seem to mean. 

{Pt. 2 Coming Soon)