In my opinion, the following is the case.
This country was achieved by the politicians by waging a peaceful political and democratic struggle.
And it was meant, constitutionally, to be run by politicians.
Though the original constituent assembly was dissolved. And whatever constitutions were agreed upon or promulgated or enforced or dissolved or revoked halfway, they all unequivocally meant this country to be run by politicians duly elected and enjoying the mandate given to them by the people.
Thus, whenever any martial law was imposed, the constitution was suspended, unconstitutionally amended, revoked, or abrogated with impunity; all the burden of such acts lay on the shoulders of the politicians, and in case they were those politicians whom people had elected, their crime stood multiplied. And as far as those politicians are concerned, who coalesced with the martial law authorities or became complicit with the security establishment, they became their abettors.
One more point.
As all the constitutions envisaged the supreme court to be the custodian of the constitution, the higher judiciary shares the blame and is in the same boat with the politicians; but since it’s the elected politicians who are the direct representatives of the people and sovereign rulers, it’s they who are to judge the judges.
That’s the framework within which the role of the politicians is required to be studied and judged.
Or, what other framework is there to put these things within in order to study and judge them?
It’s the point I made in a WhatsApp group debate.
26 March,2025