Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflections on a Crisis: Political Disenchantment, Moral Desolation, and Political Integrity

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Declining levels of political trust and voter turnout, the shift towards populist politics marked by appeals to ‘the people’ and a rejection of ‘politics-as-usual’, are just some of the commonly cited manifestations of our culture of political disaffection. Democratic politics, it is argued, is in crisis. Whilst considerable energy has been expended on the task of lamenting the status of our politics and pondering over recommendations to tackle this perceived crisis, amid this raft of complaints and solutions lurks confusion. This paper seeks to explore the neglected question of what the precise nature of the crisis with which we are confronted involves, and, in so doing, to go some way towards untangling our confusion. Taking my cue from Machiavelli and his value-pluralist heirs, I argue that there is a rift between a morally admirable and a virtuous political life. Failure to appreciate this possibility causes narrations of crisis to misconstrue the moral messiness of politics in ways that lead us to misunderstand how we should respond to disenchantment. Specifically, I suggest that: (i) we think that there is a moral crisis in politics because we have an unsatisfactorily idealistic understanding of political integrity in the first place; and (ii) it is a mistake to imagine that the moral purification of politics is possible or desirable. Put simply, our crisis is not moral per se but primarily philosophical in nature: it relates to the very concepts we employ—the qualities of character and context we presuppose whilst pondering over political integrity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Such narrations are also rehearsed by politicians for political reasons. Though ineliminable from politics, it need not follow that the vision of political morality which underpins these narrations is satisfactory.

  2. Russell’s endeavour to ‘defend politics’ against the symptoms of disenchantment suggests that politicians should avoid making exaggerated promises to the public and earnestly communicate that politics involves ‘negotiation and compromise, difficult choices’ (Russell 2005, pp. 4, 56–57). Injunctions of this sort sit uneasily with the messiness of politics—the need for politicians to conceal the betrayals inherent in their compromises. Similar problems permeate Flinder’s insightful account. Whilst Flinders (2012a, pp. 26–58) acknowledges that politics is a messy game which renders compromise and some degree of duplicity necessary, his account is accompanied by a version of the moralism I wish to question: for Flinders worries about ‘how we might break out of the cycle of broken promises that … frustrates the public’, how to ‘cultivate a more optimistic’, ‘balanced, account of what democratic politics delivers’, and suggests that ‘very few politicians tell lies’ (Flinders 2012a, pp. 17–58; Flinders 2010). Such analyses cannot thus grapple with the recognition that because compromise is ubiquitous in politics, so too are betrayal and deception.

  3. My conception of compromise resembles what Bellamy (2012) and Carens (1979) term ‘shallow’ or ‘pragmatic’ compromise respectively, and has affinities with Shklar’s (1989) and Williams’s (2002) ‘liberalism of fear’, and Horton’s (2010) and Gray’s (2000) modus vivendi. It differs from the more morally demanding notions of ‘deep compromise’ (Bellamy 2012), ‘honourable compromise’ (van Parijs 2012), and ‘integrative compromise’ (Carens 1979): principled agreements deriving from equal respect and mutual modification of principles, not merely from pragmatic calculation. This type of compromise, Bellamy writes, is ‘closer to what Rawls terms overlapping consensus’ as it is the product of ‘mutual changes in the parties’ reasoning’, and entails some sort of ‘moral correction so that [the parties] can agree on an overlapping substantive moral core’ (Bellamy 2012, pp. 453–455; my emphasis). Indeed, my suggestion that pluralism entails that agreement on a set of substantive principles and values is implausible, that conflict is ineliminable, casts doubt on the plausibility of this type of compromise (see Hampshire 1993b; Tillyris 2016a). This is somewhat conceded by Carens who writes that politics is characterised by ‘deep conflict’—that ‘if one considers the goals of one’s antagonist to be illegitimate then distributive compromise seems more plausible’(Carens 1979, p. 129)—and is glimpsed in Horton’s critique of moralism: ‘to demand that people should positively respect the views of others’, ‘remould their conceptions of the good to be ‘inclusive’, rather than ‘exclusive’ is to ignore the realities of politics; liberal democracies are characterised by pluralism and conflict, and ‘generate attitudes of … contempt and mutual hostility’ (Horton 2011, pp. 292, 299). The implausibility of agreement on shared substantive principles via which the parties can perfectly resolve conflicts without remainder, entails that compromise is intertwined betrayal (Tillyris 2016a; Lepora 2012).

  4. Compromise does not entail that something valuable is forfeited. Whilst the agreement is grudgingly accepted, ‘the disagreements among the parties are embodied in the compromise itself’; its partial components are not acceptable to all parties (Gutmann and Thompson 2012, p. 12).

  5. This need not suggest that there exist no differences between different theorisations of populism, or that populism can be captured by a single, substantive definition (Canovan 1981).

  6. This need not entail that order and security are unconditional goods. Securing these ‘negative goods’, however, is a condition for pursuing other positive goods and substantive values (see Berlin 1990; Williams 2002; Hampshire 1989, 2000).

  7. This idea is glimpsed by Gutmann and Thompson (2010, 2012), who argue that whilst governing and policy-making render compromises necessary, campaigning prohibits it.

  8. An uncompromising disposition might also jeopardise additional political goods: rising to power Tillyris (2016a).

References

  • Allen, Nicholas, and Sarah Birch. 2011. Political conduct and misconduct: probing public opinion. Parliamentary Affairs 64: 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Nicholas, and Sarah Birch. 2012. On either side of a moat? Elite and mass attitudes towards right and wrong. European Journal of Political Research 51: 89–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnsperger, Christian, and Emmanuel Picavet. 2004. More than modus vivendi, less than overlapping consensus: Towards a political theory of social compromise. Social Science Information 43: 167–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audit of political engagement. 2012. Hansard Society. http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/press_releases/archive/2012/04/25/audit-of-political-engagement-9-part-one.aspx. Accessed 10 May 2016.

  • Bellamy, Richard. 2010. Dirty hands and clean gloves: Liberal ideals and real politics. European Journal of Political Theory 9: 412–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, Richard. 2012. Democracy, compromise and the representation paradox: Coalition government and political integrity. Government and Opposition 47: 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, Richard, Markus Kornprobst, and Christine Reh. 2012. Introduction: Meeting in the middle. Government and Opposition 47: 275–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. Two concepts of liberty. In Four essays on liberty, ed. Henry Hardy, 118–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, Isaiah. 1980. The originality of Machiavelli. In Against the current: Essays in the history of ideas, ed. Henry Hardy, 20–73. New York, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, Isaiah. 1990. The pursuit of the ideal. In The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, ed. H. Hardy, 1–20. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, Isaiah. 1999. Concepts and categories, ed. Henry Hardy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Brand, Russell. 2013. Brand on revolution: ‘we no longer have the luxury of tradition’. New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution. Accessed 15 Nov 2016.

  • Boggs, Carl. 2000. The end of politics. London: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreaux, Donald J., and Dwight R. Lee. 1997. Politics as the art of confined compromise. Cato Journal 16: 365–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunting, Madeleine. 2010. Introduction. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf. Accessed 03 Sept 2016.

  • Bush, George H. W. 2011. Speaking of freedom: The collected speeches. New York, NY: Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, Roger. 1946. Mr Mencken sounds off. Life Magazine 21: 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. London: Junction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canovan, Margaret. 1999. Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy, Political Studies 47: 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carens, Joseph. 1979. Compromises in politics. Nomos 21: 123–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbert, Jack. 2015. Someone has to do it: Towards a practical defence of politicians. Contemporary Politics 21: 468–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, Colin. 2004. Post-democracy. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, Michael, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki. 1975. The crisis of democracy: On the governability of democracies. New York, NY: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, Russell. 2004. Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrialised democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dionne, Eugene. 2009. Why Americans hate politics. New York, NY: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, Matthew. 2009. Bridging the gap: Revitalising politics and the politics of public expectations. Representation 54: 337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, Matthew. 2010. In defence of politics. The Political Quarterly 81: 319–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, Matthew. 2012a. Defending Politics: Why democracy matters in the twenty first century. Oxford: Oxford University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flinders, Matthew. 2012b. The demonization of politicians: moral panics, folk devils and MPs’ expenses. Contemporary Politics 1: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fumurescu, Alin. 2013. Compromise: A political and philosophical history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt, Sue. 2010. A labour of kindness. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf Accessed 10 Nov 2016.

  • Gerson, Michael. 2012. Obama’s betrayal. The Washington Post. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-16/opinions/35491970_1_obama-campaign-president-obama-romney Accessed 15 Oct 2015.

  • Glover, Julian. 2010. A conflict of values. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf Accessed 10 Nov 2016.

  • Gray, John. 2000. Two faces of liberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2010. The mindsets of political compromise. Perspectives on Politics 8: 1125–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2011. Is there room for political compromise in an era of permanent campaigning? The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0104/Is-thereroom-for-political-compromise-in-an-era-of-permanent-campaigning. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.

  • Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2012. The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, Alan, and Zofia Stemplowska. 2012. Theory, ideal theory and the theory of ideals. Political Studies Review 10: 48–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, Stuart. 1978. Public and private morality. In Public and private morality, ed. Stuart Hampshire, 23–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, Stuart. 1983. Morality and conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, Stuart. 1989. Innocence and experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, Stuart. 1991. Justice is strife. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 65 (3): 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, Stuart. 1993a. The last charmer. New York Review of Books 40: 15–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, Stuart. 1993b. Liberalism: The new twist. The New York Review of Books 40: 43–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampshire, Stuart. 2000. Justice is conflict. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatier, Cecile. 2012. ‘Them’ and ‘us’: Demonising politicians by moral double standards. Contemporary Politics 18: 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, Colin. 2007. Why we hate politics. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, Colin, and Gerry Stoker. 2009. Revitalising politics: Have we lost the plot? Representation 45: 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Antony, Roger Jowell, John Curtice, and Pippa Norris. 1999. British General Election Study, 1997. [data collection]. 2nd Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 3887, http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-3887-1. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.

  • Hollis, Martin. 1982. Dirty hands. British Journal of Political Science 12: 385–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, John. 2010. Realism, liberal moralism and a political theory of modus vivendi. European Journal of Political Theory 9: 431–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, John. 2011. Why the traditional conception of toleration still matters. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14: 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, Linda. 2012. Nick Clegg is in too deep. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/nick-clegg-liberal-democrat-party. Accessed 10 Aug 2014.

  • Jacoby, Russell. 2009. The end of utopia: Politics and culture in an age of apathy. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, John, and Haig Patapan. 2012. The democratic leader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keane, John. 2009. The Life and Death of Democracy. London: Simon & Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kis, Janos. 2008. Politics as a moral problem. Budapest: Central European University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lent, Adam. 2010. Afterword. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf Accessed 10 Nov 2016.

  • Lepora, Chiara. 2012. On compromise and being compromised. The Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, John. 2004. What the media are doing to our politics. London: Constable.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macedo, Stephen. 2004. Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation and what we can do about It. Washington DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1985. The discourses, ed. Bernard Crick and trans. Leslie J. Walker. London: Penguin.

  • Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1998. The prince, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1996. Discourses on Livy, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, Charles. 1994. Democracy and its discontents. Foreign Affairs 73: 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Harvey C. 1996. Machiavelli’s virtue. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • May, Simon-Cabulae. 2005. Principled compromise and the abortion controversy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33: 317–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, Kenneth. 1997. Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review 57: 193–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas. 2004. The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics 39: 542–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, Richard. 1995. Re-inventing government: What does it mean? Public Administration Review 55: 213–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Pippa. 1999. Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Pippa. 2011. Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oborne, Peter. 2005. The rise of political lying. UK: Simon & Schuster Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1993. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, David, and Peter Hutchinson. 2004. The price of government: Getting the results we need in an era of Fiscal Crisis. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parijs, Philippe van. 2012. What makes a good compromise? Government and Opposition 47: 466–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philp, Mark. 2007. Political conduct. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinter, Harold. 2005. Art, truth and politics: The Nobel lecture. The Nobel Foundation, https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/dec/08/theatre.nobelprize. Accessed 05 Sept 2016.

  • Pullman, Philip 2010. Foreword. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf Accessed 03 Sept 2016.

  • Quindlen, Anna. 1994. Public & private—Two class acts, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/12/opinion/public-private-two-class-acts.html. Accessed 17 Nov 2016.

  • Ranciere, Jacques. 2006. Hatred of democracy. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Meg. 2005. Must politics disappoint? London: Fabian Society. http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MustPoliticsDisappoint.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2016.

  • Sabl, Andrew. 2002. Ruling passions: Political offices and democratic ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, Michael. 2009. The Reith lectures: Markets and morals. http://www.bbc.co.uk.programmes/b00kt7sh. Accessed 10 Nov 2016.

  • Sandel, Michael. 2010. We need a public life with a purpose. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf Accessed 03 Sept 2016.

  • Shklar, Judith Nisse. 1989. The Liberalism of fear. In Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy Rosenblum, 21–38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleat, Matt. 2013. Hope and disappointment in politics. Contemporary Politics 2: 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, Gerry. 2006a. Why politics matters: Making democracy work. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, Gerry. 2006b. Explaining disenchantment: Finding pathways to democratic renewal. The Political Quarterly 77: 184–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, Gerry. 2006c. Politics in mass democracies: Destined to disappoint? Representation 42: 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, Gerry. 2015. Anti-politics in Britain: Dimensions, causes and responses. http://www.idi.org.il/media/1429259/bythepeople_stoker.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2016.

  • Stocker, Gerry, and Colin Hay. 2015. Understanding and challenging populist negativity towards politics: The perspectives of citizens. Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321715607511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Charles. 1992. The Ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillyris, Demetris. 2015. Learning how not to be good: Machiavelli and the standard dirty hands thesis. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18: 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillyris, Demetris. 2016a. Political integrity and dirty hands: Compromise and the ambiguities of betrayal. Res Publica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-016-9323-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillyris, Demetris. 2016b. The virtue of vice: A defence of hypocrisy in democratic politics. Contemporary Politics 22: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillyris, Demetris. 2016c. After the standard dirty hands thesis: Towards a dynamic account of dirty hands in politics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19: 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, Laura. 2012. Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A Conceptual map. Philosophy Compass 7: 654–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, Mark. 2010. Ethics with a little help from my friends. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf Accessed 03 Sept 2016.

  • Walker, David, and Nicholas Jones. 2004. Invisible political actors: The Press as agents of anti-politics. London: New Politics Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilby, Peter. 2012. By his act of betrayal, Clegg will lose his greatest reward. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/14/betrayal-clegg-punish-alternative-vote. Accessed 10 Aug 2015.

  • Williams, Bernard. 1978. Politics and moral character. In Public and Private Morality, ed. Stuart Hampshire, 55–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Bernard. 2002. In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Rowan. 2010a. Lecture for the Trinity Institute. The Times. http://www.timescolumns.typepad.com/files/rowan-williams-trinity-institute.doc. Accessed 03 Sept 2016.

  • Williams, Rowan. 2010b. How to live as if we were human. In Citizen ethics in a time of crisis, ed. Madeleine Bunting, Mark Vernon, and Adam Lent. http://www.citizenethics.org.uk/docs/EthicsTemplateDoc.pdf. Accessed 03 Sept 2016.

  • Williams, Rowan 2010c. Out of the abyss of individualism: We shouldn’t leave politics to managers and economics to brokers – or be afraid to reintroduce ‘virtue’ to public discourse. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/21/individualism-virtue-public-discourse. Accessed 03 Sept 2016.

  • Zanetti, Véronique. 2011. Justice, peace and compromise. Analyse & Kritik 33: 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at the 2015 Ethics in Political Participation Workshop (Loughborough University), the 2016 Conference for Interdisciplinary Approaches to Politics (CIAP; University of Leeds), and the CCCU Politics and International Relations Research Seminar Series (Canterbury Christ Church University). I would like to thank the participants of these conferences and workshops—in particular, Ben Saunders, Andre Barrinha, Gisli Vogler, Yuri van Hoef, Laura Cashman, and Phil Parvin—for their encouragement and fruitful suggestions. I am also extremely grateful to the editors of Res Publica and the two anonymous reviewers for their support and constructive comments. Finally, many thanks should go to Phil Parvin for inviting me to the Ethics in Political Participation Workshop and for the time and energy he invested in putting this special issue together.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Politics and International Relations, School of Psychology, Politics and Sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK

    Demetris Tillyris

Authors
  1. Demetris Tillyris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demetris Tillyris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tillyris, D. Reflections on a Crisis: Political Disenchantment, Moral Desolation, and Political Integrity. Res Publica 24, 109–131 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9387-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9387-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation