Court rulings necessary

Steven Friedman’s ability to focus on vital trends is laudable. However, his fear that the judiciary might take over the job of democratic politics (Judges’ overreach is a threat to democracy, May 17) is a bit rich in a time when a corrupt administration and captive president have been overreaching themselves in more ways than one. The tendency to ignore the injunctions of our courts — witness the flouting of constitutional rulings on actions of the president and inaction of Parliament — is surely what is fatally weakening our democracy.

The courts have been the one element of government that has maintained rationality against the unravelling. The reason judiciaries are required to be independent is to ensure there is a nonpolitical authority freely competent to rule on illicit and unconstitutional acts. If in a constitutional democracy the law is not supposed to be concerned with rationality of government decisions, why bother with law and order? I am impressed with the fact that, when approached, the courts have consistently ruled on procedural and unconstitutional aspects, rather than usurping the authority of the administration or Parliament. If ministers, officials and parties desire freedom to do their jobs without coming up against court rulings, all they have to do is refrain from corruption and make rational decisions and appointments.

Clearly, the only reason the judiciary has been perceived to be so active in condemning the actions of the administration and some officials is because they have so constantly and brazenly broken the law in selfish ways that infringe on the rights of the majority of voters.