Doomsday scenario is always a populist and intriguing theory. Such theories are reflected in social life, religious doctrines, cultural outlooks and political biases. The prediction or proclamation about the end of any phenomenon opens new horizons. This keeps alive hopes for a new and better life.

The dismemberment of Soviet Union and the conversion of East European socialist countries to market economy led to the end of an ideology. No one denies this assertion. But the question is what will come next?

In this background, Francis Fukuyama’s book The End of History and The Last Man has received much publicity and has remained on the list of top ten bestsellers for a long time. Ironically, Fukuyama’s approach was closer to the Marxist interpretation of history. Fukuyama substituted Marx’s classless society as an ultimate goal with civilisation with democracy. He argued that progression of history toward a universally beneficial system of government has culminated in liberal democracy. Since liberal democracy has triumphed over other systems, as proved by the demise of Soviet and allied systems, there will be no other system except democracy -- hence the end of history.

Another book on doomsday scenario, titled The End of Power, written by Moises Naim, published in 2013, did not receive as much publicity as The End of History. Naim, a former World Bank director and former editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy, examined the diffusion of power due to technological and social changes in the modern society. The main theme of the book is that the monopoly over power and its time period is shrinking.

Naim in support of his argument cites an interesting example of Grand Chess Masters. Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov monopolised the world chess board from 1975 to 1999. Karpov alone remained a champion for about 16 years. Match between them in those days was a major sports story. But now only keen chess players might know the name of the current grand master.

The reason: the tenure of remaining on top has shortened. Now the grand chess masters hold the title for two to three years. The knowledge transmitted through books, computer softwares and internet games produce new challengers at fast speed. Naim, therefore, concludes that the power to remain on the top is no longer the same as before.

Naim has identified three revolutions that have contributed to the decay of power. Increase: in number of countries, population size, standard of living, literacy rates etc. Mobility: of goods, money, ideas and values. And mentality: changes in mindsets, expectations and aspirations.

Due to these three revolutions, power is shifting -- from empires to states, from despots to democrats, from majorities to minorities, from parties to factions, from capitals to regions, from governors to lawyers and from leaders to laymen.

The monopoly over knowledge, the source of power, is under threat. The technological edge was once an instrument available to western corporations to hold monopoly over a particular kind of product. But now emerging multinational corporations from developing countries are competing with their own brands and have considerable share in the market. In some cases they have ousted the established corporations. The days have gone when Philips had the monopoly over electrical products and Kodak on photography related materials. Though windows software is still preferred, alternatives are available.

Brand disasters hit reputation, revenues and valuations of big corporations and ultimately the power.

The power of long-established religious groups and institutions is also eroding. The new interpretations of religious thought are coming from persons who are not descendants of any recognised religious family or organisation. Hence new imams and religious thinkers are emerging. Bombardment through technology, digital communication and online opinion has resulted in decline of accepted traditional authorities. Now people can form their own opinions on religions and political and social issues without following a particular leader or sect.

Non-government organisations, social interest groups and lobbyists are encroaching on the power of governments. The international donors and governments do not have a big share in social relief. The size of charity made by private individuals and social organisations is much larger than governments and donors. Naim has estimated that international philanthropist organisations and the US individuals alone are distributing 50 per cent more than the World Bank.

Now, in international arena, being big does not ensure command. Naim through data shows that from 1958 to 1998 in 55 per cent cases weaker powers won wars or conflicts. Afghanistan and Vietnam are two examples.

The result is disorder and powers-to-be are not able to take a firm decision. Naim is concerned about the erosion of power which has created a sense of alienation among individuals. He points out a tendency of ‘Slacktivism’ among youth, intelligentsia and middle class. Now activists write petitions or respond to petitions. After clicking the button of ‘like’ on Facebook or sending a messages to authorities, they think they have fulfilled their social obligations. Naim also laments that new technologies have boosted impatience and short span of attention.

Whether the end of power or the end of challenges, the number of ‘likes’ may help to measure social trends but it will not stop the elites in power to take decisions in their interest unless the discontent is transformed into political action. Secondly, the powers-to-be have also started to manipulate traditional and social media, due to their enormous resources, to keep youth and middle class engaged in arguments and counter arguments.

When social media was not a source to vent feelings, the youth joined student organisations, political parties, participated in political discourses and devoted their energies to political causes.  Now, due to short attention span, the drive to ascertain facts and form firm opinion based on logical thinking is not visible. This tendency is apparent in social media where cartoons, catchy slogans and comments are more popular. The bombardment of such messages leaves little time to understand political issues.

So, will the powers-to-be, be happy if youth and middle-class is glued to tv and laptop screens, remain focused on micro issues and do not follow the road of political activism which actually threatens the power base?