In 1989, with the Cold War now in its twilight years, the Japanese-born American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published an article that was destined to trigger worldwide debates: the article was called The End of History?, later expanded in the book The End of History and the Last Man (1992). Fukuyama's bold and provocative thesis was that history - understood as the ideological struggle between rival political systems - had come to an end. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the failure of communism, Western liberal democracy - embodied by the United States of America - would inevitably emerge as the universal form of government. Democracy would ultimately prevail not because it was the perfect political form, but because it was the only one that could satisfy human needs for well-being, recognition and freedom better than any other. Fukuyama did not mean that historical events would come to an end, nor that there would be no more wars or conflicts; rather, he argued that no major ideological alternative to liberal democracy would ever again emerge with the same force and consistency. History, in short, would lose its dialectical "direction". Fukuyama's reflection is rooted in Hegel's philosophy (through the interpretation provided by the French philosopher Alexandre Kojève), according to which human history is the process of the progressive affirmation of freedom. The fall of 20th century totalitarianisms, especially the Soviet Union, marked the completion of this path for Fukuyama. Criticism was not long in coming: some accused him of naive optimism, others of justifying Western unilateralism. After 9/11, the rise of China and the crisis of democracy in many parts of the world, the idea of the "end of history" seemed to have faded. Yet Fukuyama himself revisited his theses several times, recognising that autocracy and populism represent real challenges, but still unable - in his view - to offer an equally attractive and stable alternative vision.