“Once you are in politics, you are a politician..”
In a post titled, “Politics and democracy“, Pragmatic Euphony mentions why it is important to get the nomenclature right (emphasis added):
Whatever might be your primary vocation, once you are in politics, you are a politician.
Does it matter? Yes, it does. This narrative betrays a lack of trust in our politics and politicians — an economist is better than a politician. In a democracy, there is no way of bypassing politics; politicians should and must matter. It is dangerous to assume that a non-politician can fix the system. Yesterday it was an economist, today it can be a civil society leader but if we continue to go down this path, tomorrow it can be a General like Pakistan.
We can’t use politician as a pejorative term, be cynical about politics as a process and place our hopes on non-politicians to lead and fix our democracy. The romance of democracy has to be underpinned by the rough and tumble of politics, which in Max Weber’s words is like  “the strong and slow boring of hard boardsâ€. We should be careful that our distaste for corruption of politics doesn’t end up as contempt for politics.
And this is also the reason why one of the primary conditions for membership of FTI, the group I belong to, is the willingness to contest elections…
Somewhat Related Posts: Politics, FTI and Corruption and Governance in India: The Discussion at IIT, Delhi
Dear Sir
I am completely agreed that the fate of the country is decided by the Politician but not by an Activist or an Economist.
The only reason is a person in a power is able to execute the decision or suggestion neither Activist nor Economist.
The same thing i have been studying in Chanakya`s Arthashastra in which power and money have given atmost importance.
So either be a leader or be a Chanakya.
Ashish A Pimple
CIPL, Mumbai University