Andrew Gamble

"A great deal of politics is debate about what the limits of politics are, how they are determined and whether those limits can and should be altered through politics. To call something limited implies that it is restricted and inadequate, and should be overcome. But to many critics of contemporary politics, it is our failure to respect either natural or social or epistemic limits which is the cause of our present problems."

"Sceptical and realist assessments of the limits of politics are an essential part of the craft of politics. But they also have their limits, since if taken too far they fuel the kind of apathy and disengagement from politics with which we are too familiar. On any historical assessment, the achievement of some form of limited democracy in so many countries today is an extraordinary one, even if much more fragile and less certain than we would wish. Many sceptics and realists today think it is transient, but their reasons are often different. Sceptics think that democracy can never work, while realists point to the structures which prevent the ideals of democracy from ever being achieved in practice. All this is part of the mood of disaffection with politics of all kinds, and the spread of cynicism and detachment, expressed in falling participation in elections, and the collapse of trust in politics and politicians – the mood that Nothing Works. Such a mood, fostered by parts of the media, narrows the limits of politics, because it is corrosive of the idea of a public realm, and of citizenship. Politics comes to be regarded as a corrupt and self-seeking activity. If such attitudes become widespread, then the capacity of politics to affect change also shrinks. Its limits contract."