The liberal world order is under threat, the German Chancellor declared today in Munich. I declared it dead in 2016, when I was studying international relations and diplomacy.
In our second week, we discussed Fukuyama’s The End of History. Even then, I could see its flaws and weaknesses. Not without sadness — the concept was hopeful and ambitious — but it was never pursued honestly or consistently.
In 2016, Brexit had just happened, and I was preparing to leave the United Kingdom as a result. As a German national, I no longer felt at home. The small but persistent forces of nationalism and religious identity politics were already stronger and more influential than Fukuyama had anticipated. He later wrote about identity, but by then it felt more like a defence of a fading idea than a continuation of a living project. The liberal world order was already eroding. It is surprising how long it took Western leaders to recognise this.
Liberalism was gradually replaced by authoritarian and libertarian tendencies. Yet, the key question remains: despite the clear benefits liberalism brought to Western democracies, why did it fail in these countries? Who truly benefited from it? These questions are rarely asked.
The West accumulated wealth, while much of the rest of the world continued to experience patterns of exploitation reminiscent of earlier colonial eras. Countries were still told how to behave, what economic models to adopt, and how to structure their societies. But even within Western democracies there were winners and losers. This internal imbalance created instability and a search for scapegoats.
Liberalism, originally an economic framework, became symbolically associated with cultural issues — gender equality, minority rights, refugee protection. These causes then became targets for resentment among those who felt excluded from economic progress. Yet their frustration was misdirected. The core problem was not feminism, minority rights, or migration. It was the economic dimension.
We were told that everyone must participate in financial markets, invest in stocks, and embrace growth at all costs. But why? Executive salaries and bonuses rose to unprecedented levels, while many workers faced stagnating wages or reductions in security. The promise that liberalism would broadly distribute prosperity did not materialise for large parts of society.
Liberalism is now fragile not because of its principles, but because of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the majority saw limited improvement.
I will say it again: this version of history has ended, just as socialism once did in its previous form. We need to think seriously and urgently about alternatives — fairer, greener models that allow people globally to benefit from a more just society.
Written and published: 13.02.2026
Leave a Reply