Every citizen should be fully aware of this, but in particular political leaders should be fully cognisant and aware of the consequences of exercising rights without adhering to their responsibilities.

And so the throwing away of our law books by the Leader of the Opposition and the subsequent walk out of the sitting in protest against the disallowing of a motion by the Speaker of the National Assembly was unjustified and uncalled for and sets a bad example to the nation especially to the younger sections of the population. This sort of behaviour infers that if you do not get your way then you disrupt and destroy. But is this a healthy attitude for our nation which is grappling with problems such as domestic violence and other violence and attitudinal related issues? Certainly not, and this is where political leaders need to behave and conduct themselves with decorum, decency and in a responsible manner so that they can become exemplars to society.

On the other hand was this relatively extreme action justifiable and reasonable? It does not seem so because the Speaker provided an explanation and cited parliamentary rules which prevented the motion for being allowed. It was not simply a case where the Speaker in a high handed and dictatorial manner threw out the motion. In fact it is not the first time that the Speaker threw out a motion of the opposition but in many of these instances the response was a far cry from what took place last Thursday.

General Secretary of the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and Member of Parliament Donald Ramotar has correctly deemed the walk out by the leading opposition party, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) from the National Assembly as ‘totally unjustified’.

“The disrespect for the laws of this country by him (Corbin) throwing down the law books and so forth is abominable to say the least, when the Speaker told him that he could have an opportunity to debate the matter,” he noted.

Mr. Ramkarran, disallowing the motion which sought to have heard issues that the party deemed important and urgent, advised the opposition leader that the matters sought to be raised are based on press reports that are unsubstantiated.

He further pointed out the matters raised by the motion must not be offered when facts are in dispute or before they are available.

The motion which requested leave to move an adjournment of the proceeding of the National Assembly to discuss definite matters of urgent public importance was also turned down on the grounds that the matters outlined in the motion were not urgent, as they were matters arising out of press reports.

The Leader of the Opposition is a seasoned political campaigner as well as many of his colleagues, and therefore they would have known beforehand that such a motion would not have been allowed but they simply persisted to use it as a smokescreen for the walkout and to join their supporters who were on the streets.

So it would appear as if the action of the main opposition party was premeditated, aimed at diverting attention from the chaos that is embroiling the internal leadership of that party and to respond to claims by a section of its membership of lack of militancy by the present leadership.

At the same time it seems as if there is a competition between the main opposition party and the AFC in which the latter is seeking to replace the former as the major opposition force.

Unfortunately, in this process both parties knowingly or unknowingly are sinking themselves into a cesspool from which they may never be able to come out.