Phantom menace, or a new hope?
There is a lot of noise about the court case re: 5th Amendment. Senior politicians from both parties, various legal experts, non-legal experts in TV talk shows, and other sundry pundits who write columns (and blogs) have been expressing their opinions freely. Some people (including the Law Minister) are saying the court’s verdict means: we are on our way to the 1972 constitution, secularism will return, religion-based politics will become illegal, and oh, Zia’s government was illegal. Others are saying this verdict means: Bismillah will be erased from the constitution and Islam will be gone from the country, we will have a constitutional crisis, and/or we will return to Bakshal-style fascism.
As with many other things, I think our media is doing an atrocious job of reporting the facts. In fact, the reporting is so hazy that a fellow blogger with an astute political antenna said to me that he couldn’t make much sense of it at all.
I don’t have any more expertise in constitutional law than my friend, and so it may well be like a blind leading another. Over the fold is what I think the verdict means: military coups are illegal, but fears of Bakshal returning or claims that religion-based politics will be automatically banned are ill-founded.
We shall very much appreciate anyone with background in consitutional law clarifying the situation for us.