Jubilee selective in upholding rule of law

In these quite interesting times one can’t help but pause and wonder why our Constitution would provide for such “untidy” things like the right to hold demonstrations and picketing when there are supposedly sufficient avenues provided under the law for initiating change and settling disputes. Why did the drafters deem it insufficient for aggrieved citizens to have only the options of either going to court or petitioning Parliament? Could it be that the far sighted drafters had in mind times when such avenues would be wholly inadequate to achieve the ends desired by the citizens? What exactly is the import of Article 1 of our Constitution, which says we can do ourselves all that we have empowered Parliament to do? The drafters wanted us to have a buffet of options, so that it is not anyone’s place to tell you which path you must take. All options are on the table and it’s for you to choose what works for you. It is not rash therefore to conclude that given a critical mass, the will of the people as expressed under the auspices of Article 37 is not only legitimate, legal, constitutional but also supreme.Peaceful protests and picketing are methods of expressing non-consent and any government that attempts to govern over objections of even a small minority embarks on a path to establishing unjust government, a direct and short path to tyranny.

The authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people. The government should pay close attention when so many people demand a particular action.