In our political conversations, one point is repeatedly emphasised, almost as if it has become a convention: that the military should refrain from intervening in politics, since their training is not designed for political engagement. While this is correct in principle, the question arises: do we apply the same standard uniformly across all sectors of society? If not, then the problem is less about intervention per se and more about competence and preparation.
In societies like Pakistan, politics is no longer confined to professional politicians. Doctors, lawyers, religious scholars, entrepreneurs, industrialists, and sometimes even those engaged in informal or illicit economic activities, such as smugglers, also participate in the political process. The question is not why these actors enter politics; the more pressing question is whether they possess knowledge of political theory, an understanding of its complexities, and awareness of the ethical responsibilities it entails.
The argument that military personnel should remain politically neutral rests on the premise that their professional socialisation does not align with democratic values, political theory, or representative governance. Yet if we accept this argument on principled grounds, it must logically extend to all non-political professions.
This raises a series of unavoidable questions: are classical political texts such as Plato’s Republic or Aristotle’s Politics formally taught in medical colleges? Do madrassas incorporate foundational texts of modern political thought, such as Machiavelli’s The Prince, Rousseau’s The Social Contract, or Max Weber’s political ethics? Similarly, when business leaders and entrepreneurs enter politics, are they systematically familiarised with the political and economic theories of Karl Marx, Adam Smith, or John Maynard Keynes?
The answer, upon careful examination, is “no”. This highlights that the problem is not the participation of a particular profession in politics, but rather the broader neglect of politics as both a disciplined field of study and a professional vocation. When political engagement lacks theoretical understanding, historical consciousness, and ethical responsibility, participation—regardless of the actor’s background—inevitably leads to institutional imbalance and democratic erosion.
The central issue is not who intervenes in politics, but whether those who intervene are adequately prepared
Political theorist Hannah Arendt emphasises that politics is not merely the exercise of power, but resides in the public sphere, where dialogue, disagreement, and mutual understanding confer meaning on collective life. Arendt warns that when politics relies on coercion or administrative force rather than persuasion, it loses its ethical and democratic essence, becoming a mere instrument of control.
In a similar vein, Max Weber, in his seminal essay Politics as a Vocation, defines politics as a professional pursuit requiring three essential qualities: passion, a sense of responsibility, and proportional judgement. Without these elements, politics degenerates into personal ambition and power consolidation, leaving institutions ethically unmoored and society politically unstable.
Plato, in the Republic, links the concept of the state to knowledge and ethics, arguing that a just state is possible only when power rests in the hands of those who understand the art of governing, and whose leadership is guided not by personal desire but by reasoned concern for justice and the common good.
Likewise, John Stuart Mill underscores in his theory of representative government that political decision-making should not be reduced to mere numerical majority; it requires critical reasoning, political awareness, and the capacity to discern the public interest. Absent these faculties, democracy becomes a formal procedure that fails to deliver justice or effective governance.
Thus, the central issue is not who intervenes in politics, but whether those who intervene are adequately prepared. When politics operates as a domain of personal influence, religious zeal, or business interests rather than as a disciplined field, the consequences are visible: weakened institutions, fragile or hybrid democracies, and a fragmented society.
Pakistan’s current political landscape illustrates that politics cannot function without professional rigour, intellectual training, and ethical responsibility. Politics is not the exclusive preserve of any particular group, but neither is it an unrestricted domain for anyone lacking the requisite understanding of its complexities. When politics is removed from the hands of the competent, debates over intervention become meaningless, and the resulting damage is borne by the entire state and society.