Realpolitik
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
Realpolitik (German: real ("realistic", "practical" or "actual") and Politik ("politics")) is a term used to describe politics based on strictly practical rather than idealistic notions, and practiced without any "sentimental illusions". Realpolitik is usually used pejoratively as a term to imply politics imposed by means of physical violence, political extortion or economical suppression, or to imply completely immoral politics aimed solely to achieve the goals by any means.
Contents |
[edit] Origin and use of the term
The term was coined by Ludwig August von Rochau, a German writer and politician in the 19th century, following Klemens Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power to keep the European pentarchy was the means for keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practitioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early-20th century, arms races and alliances occurred anyway, culminating in World War I.
As used in the U.S., the term is often pretty similar to power politics (probably because the results are often better than those of trying everything at once), while in Germany, realpolitik is more often used to describe modest (realistic) politics in opposition to overzealeous (unrealistic) politics, though it is associated with the nationalism of the 19th century. Similarly, in the German Green Party, people willing to compromise are referred to as Realos (realists), and opponents as Fundis (fundamentalists or ideologues). The case of Prussia not demanding territory from defeated Austria made this term well known.
[edit] Realpolitik in contrast to Ideological Politics
The policy of realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger. In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics — for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's "green-lighting" of Indonesian dictator Suharto's invasion of East Timor.
Ideological politics is often practiced by groups who are generally considered as radicals within their own communities. Their attitudes and actions may be characterized as unchanging regardless of the circumstances of their social context. In essence they believe that their actions must be dictated by a universal and unchanging set of rules, and should not be aimed at the achievement of a specific (and more limited) set of goals. In this sense ideological politics is much simpler and thus more attractive for those who are uncomfortable with the complexities and tensions inherent to all human societies. Such groups often reject compromises which they see as the abandonment of their ideals, and so sacrifice short-term political gain in favor of adhering to their principles.
As an example, in the U.S. elections of 2000, the third party presidential candidate Ralph Nader decided to campaign in states where the Democrats and Republicans were closely matched. Many claimed that this decision helped the Republicans (whose politics are much more incongruous with Nader's than the Democrats') win power, and thus showed Nader as an ideologically driven politician,[citation needed] who would not sacrifice his highly improbable ideal (winning office and realizing his vision for the country) so that a party that was closer to his viewpoints (i.e. the Democrats) would have a very good chance of taking power.
Another case of idealistic action is the scenario proposed by Kant, in which an observer sees a man fleeing from an assailant. The attacker, having lost sight of his victim, asks the observer which direction to go. In Kant's view, the observer must tell the truth. This is generally held to be a shortcoming of deontological ethics.
[edit] Relation to Realism
A foreign policy guided by realpolitik can also be described as a realist foreign policy. Realpolitik is related to realism and can be regarded as one of its foundations, as both implicate power politics. Realpolitik however is a prescriptive guideline for policy-making (like foreign policy), while realism is a paradigm that includes a wide variety of theories that describe, explain and predict international relations. Realpolitik also focuses on the balance of power among nation-states, which is also a central concern in realism. Both also imply operation according to the belief that politics is based on the pursuit, possession, and application of power. This runs a risk of promoting crimes in times of war.
