I agree about Churchill, a great leader but not much of a politician.

Mandela is surely the greatest politician of my lifetime (nearly 50). I visited SA, age 17, and was appalled by the practicalities of apartheid. Seeing it end relatively free of violence was astonishing and moving, seeing the relative lack of vengence afterwards even more surprising. De Klerk must get equal credit for the former but I think the latter is all Mandela.

Because I saw Mandela "in action" I find it hard to judge Ghandi in comparison. He is certainly admirable, and his example will probably live longer than Mandela's.

jesus christ (if existed)

(if not, then mohamed, would be my favourite)

Mohammed was a big user of the sword...........

@figle, depends how you rate you politicians I suppose

@Checkmate: I think the OP was after people who achieved things in their lifetime. In which case Mohamed would definitely "win". However, if you want go down that road, especially given the violence wrought in their names, I suggest Buddha as a more worthy nomination.

I would argue that politicians should be judged on favourable outcomes for the majority of the population. Thus Hitler gets a big fat "loser" rating.

@diplomat
hmm, I would say a politician should be judged for how successful they were at getting people to do what they wanted - no matter what people thought of it.

Well, if we're breaking the rules, the fact Lenin managed to pull of a revolution in Russia and spread it to the entire empire rather than just a single city, him and Trotsky have to be given a shout. Shame Stalin had to ruin all that really.

@figs&hellriot: you may have a point but I am going to look for anything to disqualify shits like Hitler, Lenin et al.

PS maybe Al was 't so bad

I'd like to put in a good word for Francois Joseph Leclerc du Tremblay. He played a major role in preventing Hapsburg dominance in Europe during the 30 Years War and can be considered the one of the primary authors of both the Nation-State and the doctrinal goal of natural boundaries in French foreign policy. France passed up opportunities to seize Catalonia and right bank cities on the Rhine at his insistence. French foreign policy from 1600-1800 was driven by his decisions.

A few comments: Richelieu deserves more credit than Bismarck. They accomplished similar things but Otto started with a lot more to work with. Had the Cardinal been a manic-depressive who was frequently incapacitated by his mental illness the French State would have been devoured from within or without.

Louis XIV routinely made catastrophic errors of judgment that neither Bismarck nor Richelieu could have survived. Persecuting the Huguenots was disastrously timed not to mention that Prince Eugene asked to serve him and Louis blackballed him for being Mazarin's nephew. Louis could have very easily won. He united his enemies against him when they were at daggers point with one another and handed his enemies one of the greatest generals of all time. Napoleon listed him among the top 7 of all time.

Palmerston very nearly made a hash of Britain's alliances in very short order, so I'll go with Pitt.

In Kaiser Willy's defense, his decision making was not insane. Reference the work of both Niall Ferguson and George Kennan. German fleet building was a result not a cause of British hostility. Germany chose Austria over Russia because they believed that Austria could bring Britain. Russia and Britain were viewed as mortal enemies. And Germany came very close to forming an alliance with Britain. In the end, it was Germany's unwillingness to go to war with Russia over India and China that scuttled the alliance and then Chamberlain lost to the Liberals in 1906, I think. But once Dagmar became Empress of Russia, Russo-German relations were going to be strained. Plus Russia needed money. Germany did not have it and Britain was unwilling to lend it. That made Franco-Russian detente likely. Fashoda and Afghanistan made choosing Russia over Austria seem likely to bring Britain in as an ally. German fleet building was mainly a Fleet Street side show to the actual decision making which revolved around Germany not really caring about French threats to Egypt or Russian incursions into Manchuria.

@figs: seriously, getting people to do what the politician wanted is a reasonable test and probably what the OP was getting at. Still, I will seek ways to disqualify those who advocated things that bought shit on the people who followed them. Being popular is easy, being popular & right is a lot tougher.

Jesus was no politician. If he had been, he wouldn't have been killed but made king by both sides of the "aisle". No, Jesus was an orator and a leader of a small movement, but he never intended to be a politician nor did he intend for his movement to put him on top while he was alive.

@Draugnar, you could define politics more widely so as to include the actions of Jesus. I'm not aware of Gandhi having ever taken public office either, though I may well be very wrong...

@diplomat61: We would have to define what is "right" then, which we never will accomplish. Additionally I find it funny that you try to make your definition in such a way that you like the outcome - not very scientific. I am pretty sure you don't know anything about Lenin, so I won't start a discussion here, but at least don't call him "shit".

Farmerboy is right. Otto von Bismarck.

I believe that Kaiser Wilhelm II damned his own nation. He had a personal liking of austria and was fond of allying with the weaker nations of europe rather than the strong ones like Bismarck. Had Bismarck been still ruling Germany, Britain and Russia would have been Germanys allies. Maybe austria. Wilhelm wanted to have a strong navy like Britain and so began building one. Bismarck was never that stupid. So Britain saw germany as a rival.

Sure, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes was stupid. But the War of Spanish Succession guaranteed a Bourbon on the Spanish throne, removing the Hapsburg threat that had been there for centuries.
"Loius XIV said himself that "I am the State." By bankrupting the crown, he bankrupted the state." Montesquieu himself writes of the wealth in the country after Louis's reign. And being an absolute monarch, he can call himself whatever he wants.
"And he actually made almost no perminant gains for France." Uh, would anyone call gaining Alsace and Strasbourg as not permanent gains? he also gained Haiti, the most valuable Caribbean island at the time.
"In fact the forgetten Louis XV conquered over three times the land as Louis XIV... but no one would try to say he was great." Where? Sure he gained Corsica, but Lorraine was promised to him, it wasn't conquered. He also lost a lot of land during the War of Austrian Succession.
"Sure Louis faced a united Europe against him, but he only held them off, not defeated them." What? Louis made huge gains for France against a united Europe.

And what about Charles Tallyrand? Ensured that the terms of the Congress of Vienna wouldn't destroy France.

Most popes.

Henry Clay was pretty B.A.

A politician's goal, whether he be running for public office or not, is to get people to see things their way. Ghandi had that goal as does the Dalai Lama. Jesus' goal was similar in the long term, but in the short term he polarized people between those who loved him and those who hated him, which is why I don't think he was a great politician. Maybe he was *a* politician, but not a *great* politician. He convinced some to love him, but others within his own party (the Jewish leadership) hated him and saw to his death.

Talleyrand. After France got smashed thoroughly in the wake of the Napoleonic wars, he managed to keep it from being especially dismembered. Plus, look at his CV and how many different types of French Governments he served as de facto Foreign Minister.

"He convinced some to love him, but others within his own party (the Jewish leadership) hated him and saw to his death."

Remind me, what happened to Gandhi?

@zarat: the Russian revolution, the red terror, execution of opponents, the rip-roaring success of Marxist-Leninism - how much more do I need to know before I am allowed to label Lenin a shit?

Defining "right" would likely be impossible in this context, not unlike defining "best" or "politician".There is no rule that requires scientific method in this forum, or they would have been shut down long ago. My posts are my opinion, shared with others to stimulate debate and learn from their answers.

What can I learn from your contribution? Not much; you hold a candle for Lenin, but there is no explanation of why (unhelpful in a debate). You apparently value the scientific method (sensible) but want it applied inappropriately (silly). You presume to know the minds of others (rude & foolish) then hint at superior knowledge (condescending) but won't share it (unhelpful again) on the pretence of not wanting to start an argument (foolish again).

of couse Otto von Bismarck. savior of germany.

Some people would argue that having the backing of hundreds of thousands is a bit greater that a throng of s couple hundred. Ghandi wasn't despised by his own people. The Jews in charge hated Jesus, one of their own. And I'm not saying Jesus wasn't a great man. He was. But he wasn't a great politician and I'm glad of that cause most politicians are snakes in the grass.

Fair enough, Draugnar.

@Diplomat. If you separate how much of that was caused by Lenin, how much by Stalin, and how much is exaggeration by western politicians, you might noticed that it wasn't Lenin who caused it all.

Please, not another Lenin vs. Stalin vs. Capitalism thread.
Oh, and Gandhi was hated by many people in India. Many Hindus believed he should have been violent against the British and/or Muslims shouldn't have been given Pakistan. And then many Muslims hated him for not doing enough for Pakistan.