There is a good deal of abstract idealism in much of what stands for political discourse along the themes of imagination. My concern with much of this commentary is the distinct lack of analysis into sources of power and how entrenched vested interests dominate the real politics. At the same time, this should not be reduced to a debate between realist and non-realist positions on politics as in many respects this is another false dichotomy. While I agree with Geuss’s (2008) comment that ‘there is no single canonical style of theorizing about politics’. I am also somewhat alarmed by fanciful flights of theoretical speculation and narrative that propounds a utopian vision of what is possible without recourse to the essential analytics of power. In particular, narratives that regale the imaginary concerning empowerment and the perceptions people have regarding their ‘ability to do’. Thus, an exaggerated sense of what one can do may be as politically disarming as a non-realization of the ‘ability to do’. Hence, in either case the perception of

power can be misleading and false, resulting in a wilful blind optimism or a sense of helplessness. The political discourse surrounding globalization often exhibits these elements. To this extent, contributing further to the already extensive wordage given to the ‘social imaginary’ or ‘global imaginary’ as relating to the condition of modernity, cosmopolitanism and globalization, will not advance the thesis I have been propounding on democracy. The emphasis I want to provide specifically addresses critical thought on the concept of the political and of power as being integral to our conceptualizations of what constitutes a democratic culture and the embedded social practices and judgment required to affect change.