Supporters of the government's recent actions argue that the crackdown on CJP-affiliated protesters is a necessary step to uphold the rule of law. From this perspective, no organization, regardless of its stated mission, is above the legal requirements that govern the functioning of civil society groups. Proponents of the government's stance emphasize that regulatory compliance is essential for national security and the prevention of activities that could potentially incite unrest or undermine public order.
Those backing the administration point out that the legal system provides clear channels for grievances to be addressed. By choosing to march on the Prime Minister's residence, critics argue that the opposition is attempting to bypass these established legal processes in favor of political theater. This view holds that the government is simply exercising its duty to enforce existing laws, and that characterizing these actions as a crackdown on dissent is a misrepresentation of standard administrative oversight.
Furthermore, supporters suggest that the government must remain firm against pressure tactics that seek to influence policy through street-level agitation. They argue that allowing such protests to disrupt the functioning of the capital sets a dangerous precedent. For the government, maintaining a consistent application of the law is seen as a vital responsibility to ensure that all entities, including NGOs and advocacy groups, operate with transparency and accountability to the state.