WHAT WOULD Karl Marx have thought if he had lived to see Lenin carry out his revolution? Prophets rarely have the chance to see politicians put their words into action. But Francis Fukuyama has. And he’s far from delighted.

It was the collapse of Marxism that catapulted Fukuyama to global attention as a guru and seer. His book, The End of History and the Last Man, was published in 1992 while the dust was still settling from the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It was an instant success, commercially and intellectually, speaking of the need for a guide to the new world being remade after the Cold War.

Fukuyama’s thesis, which has often been wilfully misinterpreted, was certainly sweeping but far from simplistic. He argued that the global struggle between different ideologies to assert that they were the best answer to modern man’s needs had ended with decisive victory for liberal democracy. During the 20th century rival models, whether fascist, authoritarian, theocratic or communist, had all been tried. And all had palpably failed to deliver. All had produced misery rather than the freedom, and comfort, which the citizens of the West had come to enjoy.

Fukuyama did not argue that all would now be for the best in the best of all possible worlds, but he did maintain that history as it had been seen in the 20th century, as a competition between rival models of modernity, had ended with liberal democracy as the clear victor.

Now that another, briefer but hotter, war has ended, and another conflict has been concluded in which liberal democracies have emerged the victor, it might be expected that Fukuyama would be permitted a quiet gloat. After all, if he was the prophet of liberal democracy’s eventual universal reign shouldn’t he be applauding George W. Bush and his neoconservative allies for giving history, and democracy, a powerful helping hand in Iraq? As the Marx of the West shouldn’t he be delighted by the Lenin-like determination of Bush to revolutionise the Middle East?

“Actually, I’m a little pessimistic,” Fukuyama declares, gently but firmly, when we meet for tea in a Soho hotel. “I’m sceptical of what Bush has done.”

But surely the US President was only putting into action Fukuyama’s own gospel?

“Well, I do believe there are fundamental economic and political imperatives pushing history in one direction, towards greater democracy. But the use of military power to push this process forward is a big roll of the dice. There are cultural obstacles to that. We may not win on this one.”

What makes Fukuyama’s scepticism towards the Bush doctrine more striking is his own closeness to those who have helped to guide Bush’s hand. Fukuyama is an old friend, and former colleague, of Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld’s deputy at the Pentagon. Wolfowitz has been demonised, in Europe and beyond, as the highest-flying hawk in the Bush Administration. Fukuyama is full of praise for his old friend as a much more subtle, thoughtful and progressive thinker than the widespread caricature.

He emphasises that Wolfowitz is an idealist who believes in extending democracy’s gifts to all, rather than a traditional Republican realist interested solely in the cynical pursuit of American advantage. Fukuyama believes that Wolfowitz’s interest in the Middle East isn’t driven by oil, but by a belief that the region is held back by the uniformly authoritarian and unrepresentative nature of Arab states. But while Fukuyama clearly respects Wolfowitz’s motives he still feels the need to offer a gentle warning to his old friend.

“The idealist view of the Middle East is that Arab politics is stuck, and you can use Iraq to create an alternative model, an Arab state with freedom, the rule of law, greater democracy. I hope that happens. But I must say I’m sceptical. They (the Iraqis) are a fractious people. It’s an extremely delicate game to have a non-Baathist regime to keep the country together. And the other reason to be pessimistic is that we (the US) are not good at nation-building. We’re quick on the trigger when it comes to military intervention, but much slower on making the commitment to order and reconstruction.”

Fukuyama believes, however, that Wolfowitz is one of those in the Administration who is serious about making a long-term commitment to improving the whole Middle East region.

“I’m reassured by his presence in the Administration. He’s not a simple unilateralist. It’s Dick Cheney and (Arms Control Under-Secretary) John Bolton who’re more that way inclined. Wolfowitz believes in using US power for good. The Left often fails to realise that you have to use power sometimes to achieve good ends. It was US power, after all, that brought Hitler down.