A student seminar titled “Ethics in Politics” was organized by TECODH with the participation of a group of Master’s students in Political Science in Zahedan, Iran.
During the session, Mousa Badini, Majid Najafzadeh, Mohammad Bardestani, Helena Shahbakhsh, and several other students discussed the following three main topics:
The first topic opened with the question: “Is politics, like professions such as medicine, a specialized field that only experts should enter?”
In response, diverse perspectives were presented. Some participants argued that politics is indeed a specialized discipline requiring specific knowledge, experience, and skills. Therefore, individuals lacking such qualifications should not play a role in political affairs.
In contrast, another group noted that, in practice, many individuals without formal political education are active in political spheres. This reflects the reality that, while politics does require expertise and skill, due to its deep connection with the society, decision-making, and public rights, it cannot be exclusively confined to a particular group of specialists. The nature of politics demands public participation. Otherwise, if we consider politics solely a technical field for the elite, what becomes of democracy and the principle of government by the people? Human beings are inherently political creatures; their lives unfold within society and in relation to power and decision-making.
A third group sought to strike a balance. While they acknowledged the importance of public participation in politics, they also argued that the effectiveness and stability of a government or state depend on the presence and active engagement of competent individuals with advanced education and political awareness—those capable of contributing meaningfully to policymaking and decision-making through knowledge, experience, and strategic insight.
The second topic focused on the Sistan and Baluchestan province, raising the question: “Why is it that in traditional societies like Sistan and Baluchestan, local elites (such as religious leaders, tribal chiefs, and academics) publicly promote meritocracy during elections and encourage people to vote for qualified candidates, yet in practice, ethnicity and religion play the dominant role in determining electoral outcomes?”
Participants attributed this contradiction to the traditional structure of such communities, where strong social pressures influence the electoral process. In this context, traditional institutions wield greater influence, while civil institutions—which could support meritocracy and more informed choices—remain weak and ineffective. Consequently,
although elites speak of meritocracy, in practice, they are influenced by prevailing traditional frameworks.
The final topic addressed the question: “Do countries have moral responsibilities toward one another, or do they primarily act based on their national interests?”
In their responses, students emphasized the central role of national interests, asserting that the reality of international relations revolves around the pursuit and preservation of these interests. While the concept of moral responsibility among states is acknowledged and humanitarian and ethical considerations are sometimes taken into account, these factors are typically secondary—or only prioritized when they do not conflict with national interests. Thus, it can be concluded that in the international system, national interest remains the primary driver of state behavior, and while moral responsibility is important in theory, it is often overshadowed by strategic considerations.
TECODH – Zahedan, April 24, 2025.
Join us on our Whatsapp Channel