My favourite definition of the Rule of Law is, "The principle that all people and institutions are subject to law that is fairly applied and enforced."

The International Bar Association stated that the Rule of Law is the "...foundation of a civilised society. It establishes a transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to principles that both liberate and protect."

Mr Julius Malema and his EFF intend disrupting a joint sitting of parliament unless President Zuma answers questions from them before he delivers his State of the Nation address. This indicates the level of contempt that the EFF has for the rights of others and for the rules that guide parliament. Don't forget that the president was busy with his replies to questions and was prevented from proceeding when the disorder, instigated by the EFF, broke out.

The president has not been as assiduous as he is required to be in answering questions in the National Assembly. That needs to be fixed and the DA is absolutely correct in insisting on the presidency carrying out the obligations and naming the dates for President's Questions. It is also correct in stating that it will not be a party to the disruption of the opening of parliament, which the EFF, a 6% party, is threatening to cause.

Those who are the most intrigued by the EFF showmanship are the very people who would not dream in a million years of voting for them. Some might find these tactics amusing; even fascinating. I do not.

Is there any organisation in a democratic society that can function on the basis that rules, norms, standards, the law, the constitution can be disregarded?

Can the courts run if the rules of court are treated with contempt by the litigating parties, the lawyers and the judge? Can a soccer match proceed if the players and the referee ignore the rules of the game and do what they like, when they like?

Even in the darkest days of apartheid, when Helen Suzman was a lone voice, her right to be heard was honoured by successive Speakers. But she was not the only one who was entitled to speak. Every MP had the right to ask questions and to make speeches and so did the prime-minister and the president have the right to report and address the House and the nation. And that has been the case in our country since the first democratic elections in 1994.

To her great credit, the first Speaker in the new era, Dr Frene Ginwala, firmly established from the first day that all parties, no matter how small, had the right to be heard. However unpopular or unfashionable or downright unacceptable to most people the views were, those views could be, and were, expressed. Parliament never wavered in that for twenty years and through some tumultuous times and heated debates, that principle has prevailed.

I enjoy the distinction of being the only MP who was ever censured for doing his job properly. The National Assembly passed a resolution condemning my "reprehensible conduct towards President and Mrs Mbeki." My sin was stating that the public expenditure of some R3.5million on security requirements at the Mbeki's retirement home in Johannesburg had to be accounted for by the government and taking members of the media to view the property. Shades of Nkandla! The fact is, though, the whole matter was aired in the Assembly and I had the right to reply to all the allegations. My right to be heard was never in doubt.

The EFF is adopting a course of action that is very dangerous for our country. It is not their right to be heard that is in question. It is their insistence on being heard to the exclusion of others. It is their determination to bully, to intimidate and to shout down any other thoughts. It is to do whatever the EFF wants or what its leader wants, irrespective of any other consideration.

They are to proceed with encouraging the poor and the gullible to invade "unoccupied" land on the basis that they are entitled to it. It is but a step away from invading occupied land as was done in the wholesale theft of land in Zimbabwe. The sufferers were both the owners of the land but also the thousands who were employed there. The main beneficiaries were not the landless; it was the well-connected, the politicians, the Mugabe circle. Given Mr Malema's history who would wager that he and his cronies are not the intended ultimate beneficiaries, as they were in Limpopo?

Given the inability of the bureaucracy to run anything efficiently, starting with ESKOM, the Post Office, SAA, SABC, to name a few, it is quite laughable that the EFF wants to nationalise the mines and steal all the land without compensation. But the party is entitled to hold those views and to idolise Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and North Korea as glowing examples of successful societies where the citizens are free and prosperous. What it is not entitled to do is to trash and loot and vandalise parliament as it did to the Gauteng provincial legislature. It is also not entitled to prevent others - even President Zuma - from expressing their views and the people from hearing them.

I cannot believe that there can be no consequences for bringing parliament to a halt. If necessary, the rules need to be written or rewritten and applied in such a way that there is a court- approved constitutionally- compliant basis for the parliamentary discourse to carry on with some semblance of order. If no solution is found that enables parliament to do its work of oversight of government management and mismanagement, with an opportunity for all the representatives of our people to be heard, then the Rule of Law is in peril. And so is our democracy.

Douglas Gibson is a former Opposition chief whip and a former ambassador to Thailand, Cambodia, PDR Laos and Myanmar.

This article first appeared in The Star.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter