It's not the first time that our parliament has resembled a battleground, with MPs from both the ruling party and the opposition engaged in fierce clashes. It is not the first time that the climax of such a confrontation led the opposition members in Parliament to take the bold step of boycotting a plenary session and walking out in protest.
However, it's essential to recognise that walking out of Parliament as a form of protest has a long history that spans centuries. It is a political tradition for expressing dissatisfaction with prevailing matters and a means of drawing attention, rather than a mere comedy skit, as some government members have termed it.
The act of walking out of a parliamentary session as a form of protest has been a potent and symbolic means of expressing dissent by lawmakers for centuries. Throughout history, this practice has left an indelible mark on political landscapes, signifying pivotal moments of defiance, resistance and societal transformation.
From its roots in ancient assemblies to its resonance in contemporary seats of power, the narrative of walking out of Parliament weaves a vivid tapestry of political activism.
The roots of parliamentary walkouts can be traced back to ancient times when assemblies and councils were the crucibles of early democracy. In 400 AD, for instance, senators would express their dissent by walking out of the Senate chamber to halt proceedings, a move known as "ex-cedendo" (literally, "to depart").
During the English Civil War in the 17th century, for instance, Members of Parliament (MPs) who opposed the Crown would physically leave the chamber to protest against royal decrees or acts of tyranny.
In the early days of the United States, the Continental Congress saw walkouts by representatives from various states who couldn't reach a consensus on issues such as taxation and representation. These divisions ultimately led to the American Revolution and the birth of a new nation.
The Indian Parliament has witnessed numerous walk-outs.
South Africa's Parliament also has a history of walk-outs, particularly during the apartheid era.
Still, when the PN Opposition walked out of Parliament last March in protest at a government motion which condemned its attitude towards Speaker Anglu Farrugia, was it legitimate or was it a petulant and dramatic act of self-importance? Or perhaps it felt the need to be a rebel without a cause?
To date, the term walk-out has not been defined in Rules of Conduct and Parliamentary Etiquette and therefore, there are no laws governing or prohibiting it. Its use remains a medium of protest, boycotting a proposed motion or agenda.
Its main aim would be to stall the proceedings of the day. However, it doesn't stop the proceedings or affect the voting on a motion, as indeed happened last March.
In our two-party system, the walkout is ineffective in stopping or disrupting the ruling party from pursuing what they want. This is because the ruling party would typically already have enough parliamentary majority to pass simple legislation and, possibly, enough two-thirds even to legislate a major piece of legislation that mandates a minimum two-thirds vote.
So perhaps the last walkout was simply a protest, dramatised to draw attention to what the opposition and their blocks are not happy about for whatever reasons.
Opposing for the sake of opposing is not uncommon, rather than some political systems such as in the US, where cross-party solidarity can emerge when the issues debated and voted upon are considered of national significance.
There is always something to disagree with, especially since opposition parties are there to provide a voice of dissent so that policies can be improved.
One crucial way the Opposition can do this is by questioning the motions and suggesting alternative solutions through discussions and debates, which is what the Parliament should be about.
But then again, politics is mostly drama anyway, so why not put up a good show, including staging walkouts? But sometimes, as in many loud and dramatic parliamentary sittings we are lately having, debates are often difficult to control, so if the MPs aren't given the chance to make their statements heard, they wouldn't see any point in trying to debate it out.
We are still at the kindergarten stage as compared with parliaments in some other developed countries, where mutual throwing of chairs and other accessories is the order of the day!
It's interesting to note, however, that before the latest Opposition PN walkout, there had been another PN parliamentary walkout in March 2023, when the Speaker allowed the government to put forward an amendment outside its allotted time concerning the PN's motion to condemn the hospitals deal struck down by a court.
Going back to the recent history of walkouts, we find that in October 2013, PN MPs walked out of parliament in protest at the Speaker's decision over a breach of privilege complaint against Simon Busuttil. And in December 2019, then Opposition Leader Adrian Delia and all PN MPs walked out of parliament as a sign that they will not be participating in parliamentary work as long as Joseph Muscat remains prime minister.
From what I could find out, though, it is curious to note that there was never a single instance when the Labour Opposition staged a parliamentary walkout protest.
Undoubtedly, the act of walking out continues to be a compelling means of challenging the status quo and asserting the power of protest within democratic systems.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer