The writer is a lawyer.
“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” — Carl Jung
THERE is no ambiguity about the foundations of the 1973 Constitution: the Constitution is the supreme law and it can neither be suspended — not even for a minute — nor abrogated. Civilian democracy is the only form of constitutional governance; citizens’ fundamental rights have enforcement priority and any de facto domination or interference by the military establishment in our civilian democratic government is unconstitutional.
If such issues are constitutionally unambiguous then why is there an implied acceptance by the judiciary of the de facto domination or interference by the establishment in our civilian democracy (interference within political parties and in elections, one-sided accountability etc)? Also why is there judicial tolerance for repeated, grave violations of citizens’ fundamental rights by state officials (missing persons, severe restrictions on freedom of speech, press and media etc)?