Francis Fukuyama purported in 1989 that the world had reached the end of history, and that liberal democracy had triumphed as the teleological endpoint of governmental evolution. However, there is a looming question that enshrouds Fukuyama's assertion: what about Africa? Governance in Africa is a source of great interest to many international relations scholars, as the region is plagued with failed, failing, or inefficient governments, most claiming the title of democracies. While the sources and solutions are widely contested, I attempt to provide in my thesis a parsimonious account of the current situation in the region and assess its possible trajectories. I purport that liberalism has been and likely will continue to be insufficient in mitigating the shortcomings of governance in Africa. The three pillars of traditional Kantian liberalism, which allegedly produce peace and have been adopted by most developed states, are democratization, institutionalization, and free markets. In detailing how these principles have failed Africa, I also explain how they will likely continue to fail due to the astute logic of Hegelian dialectics. I use Hegel's law of unity and conflict of opposites to show that the African people are in a struggle between tradition and modernity which prevents the sustainability of liberal, Western-style governance and capitalism. Furthermore, Hegel's law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes suggests that without accumulation of a relevant good, like wealth or power, the African people are unlikely to embrace modern liberalism to a degree that would allow its successful imposition. Finally, I assess the future of liberalism in Africa, asserting that liberal democracy and capitalism are not the final destinations of all societies, and that alternate forms of governance and market structures need to be sincerely considered in Africa and perhaps elsewhere.No embarg
