A Treatise of Parliamentary Law A Ca l l f o r a Parad i g m S h i ft By Kimo Gandall, PRP
Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty. — Henry M. Robert
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. — Judges 17:6
I believe there is a crisis among deliberative bodies: a crisis of custom, of norms, of the rules, and of their connection to good practice. That crisis is “the need for stability in parliamentary law.”1 Many are unclear on either the why or the when to apply parliamentary procedure. Such struggles outline the great Biblical conflict that influenced Robert, pitting strict pharisaic application of the rules to the intention and benefit of those rules.2 This article seeks to propose a paradigm shift to categorize the principles of parliamentary law as a means of understanding the great balancing act of rules and rights. Before explaining the academic sense of this argument, its importance must be noted. As our world undergoes the COVID-19 crisis, extensive arguments have emerged as to the “nature of the deliberative assembly” in electronic settings, especially the requirement of “simultaneous aural communication” that is similar or the same as a ‘face-to-face’ meeting.3 Some contend we should just ignore the rules and favor ‘life,’ others argue we must still meet, and endanger the lives of others, and yet others insist we do neither. It is our job as parliamentarians to work towards providing a framework to remedy this crisis of philosophy, so that life as we know it can continue. 1 Robert, H. M. III (2002). “Henry Robert’s Goals Remain in Part Unfulfilled.” National Association of Parliamentarians: 73. 2 Joseph O’Brien, “Henry Martyn Robert: Writer of the Rules, An American Hero (2020),” p. 199. 3 RONR (11th ed.), p. 97, ll. 20-26. 18
National Parliamentarian • Summer 2020
