Where Huntington gives a sense of thoroughness, Fukuyama leaves the reader with a sense of historical abbreviation. Yet it is impossible to give a thorough account of political history, so his account does feel a bit like he has cherry-picked his examples.

Fukuyama takes advantage of the wider historical interest of today to integrate moments throughout history. Huntington was familiar with political movements around the world but there was a lack of historical depth in areas beyond Europe. His historical examples range from the Qin Dynasty to the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, Fukuyama has a larger canvas than Huntington. For scholars like Huntington or Lipset it was a fundamental part of their training.īut it is a disservice to describe Fukuyama’s masterpiece as a poor imitation of Huntington. But it exists because, so few scholars have a strong understanding of the long process of democratization in the West. It gives readers a great background in the history of democratization in Europe. Sheri Berman recently published a work called Democracy and Dictatorship in Europe. Huntington bridges the divide between the behaviorists and the traditionalists before him, so he simply has a background in European political development which is rare among political scientists today. It is so thorough and so well researched. Political Order in Changing Societies is an absolute masterpiece. Fukuyama’s two volume work is largely based upon Huntington’s Political Order in Changing Societies.

The origins of political order