Oh my, a loaded term in politically loaded times! This was my first thought when I came across this Germanism in the English language, the other day. Realpolitik (pronounce: ray-‘ul-poli-’tic, meaning realistic politics) was a word I can’t even remember having been discussed in my politics classes in grades 12 and 13 at my German grammar school. And, to be honest, back then we had such boring teachers on that topic that I only scraped by. I guess, newspapers and reading up on history shaped my political understanding more than these tedious lessons in which somebody was droning on and on about terminology without any exciting references to the real world.
The Oxford Dictionary defines realpolitik as “a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.“ Basically, fundamentalism would be the rigid counterpart inside a political party. I remember that there were two camps within Germany’s Green Party, called realos and fundis (pronounce: foon-dees), and they were constantly in each other’s hair about pretty much any topic. Back in the 1980s, the fundis were even against participating in the German government because they didn’t agree with the democratic establishment of the traditional parties involved. It was the realos who turned the Green Party into an ally with the German Social-Democratic Party after one of their landslide election outcomes in a state; being part of the government and having a say in a traditional democratic way had won out. Many of the original fundis separated from the party in the 90s and joined or founded other political parties.
Realpolitik – I had to check with Wikipedia on a few things – is a term coined by German journalist and politician Ludwig von Rochau in 1853. In a way it might be the easiest to define realpolitik as a pursuit of the possible with tools that help to achieve it. In other words, the biggest ideal is only worth so much if there is no way of making it graspable and turning it into a reality.
Therein lies the danger, of course, because the term does not refer to ethics, to morale, to the human conscience. Basically, anybody in a position of power, wielding their influence to achieve their goal, is a Realpolitiker, no matter whether they do their people a favor or just fortify their own reign. Their doing doesn’t have to be based on any other philosophy than that of winning the day. Machiavelli described such Realpolitik in his philosophical works, and he doesn’t pretend that realpolitik means that its outcome would be a development for the better.
Realpolitik is short-lived and based on current situations rather than on a long-term concept with long-term goals. Such as a fundamentalist would have, or an ideologist. I’m not sure I like either position. I guess, I’m not too fond of ideologies and of people who would do anything to stay in power. As long as there is the freedom of each individual’s own mind and actions within whatever politics dish us, mindfulness for the better of a society in the long run is what I’d cherish in a leader. In other words – the golden mean is what might be most eligible.
