Has Frene Ginwala, the Speaker of Parliament, overstepped the mark? Over the past seven years, she has, by and large, been seen to be fair in conducting her official duties. But there is a specific instance in which she has erred, which provides a compelling case against her.

It relates to her interventions concerning the arms-deal inquiry.

On December 27 last year, after Parliament had endorsed the call for an inquiry into the arms deal, Ginwala took it upon herself to issue a statement in which she gave an interpretation of the report that called for the inquiry.

In the statement, she said that the report - the much-debated 14th report of the standing committee on public accounts - did not call for the specific inclusion of Judge Willem Heath in the investigation.

But, according to several legal opinions afterwards, the report did intend for four investigating units to be included, one of which was the Heath Special Investigating Unit.

Ginwala's statement was intended to contradict the committee's chairman, Gavin Woods.

It constituted an intervention in a politically charged matter in a way that appeared calculated to support an opinion held by members of the executive, who were also her party bosses.

It also opened the way for an unprecedented attack by the executive on Parliament, in particular on Woods.

So, Ginwala - despite her good record - erred when the stakes were raised.

When Parliament commenced in 1994, and again during the constitutional negotiations, it was agreed that the Speaker would remain a member of the party caucus.

Thus, the Constitution does not demand that the Speaker resign from her party.

Now that the going has got tough, it does not help to whine that the agreement should be reversed.

But, over the past two years, Parliament has become highly politicised and adversarial.

This should have been a warning to Ginwala that, given the two hats she wears, she would have to tread carefully.

Instead, she has done the opposite.

When Tony Yengeni, the Chief Whip, contemptuously refused to answer the queries of the registrar of members' interests, Ginwala did nothing. When the ethics committee passed the buck in dealing with Yengeni's contempt, she was silent.

A feature of this more politicised and adversarial Parliament is that the principle of majoritarianism has been more strongly embraced by the ANC.

Since the majority elected it, it will not fear to rule, the ANC has stated again and again.

This week, it reiterated that minority reports in Parliament would not be tolerated as the view of the majority must be given the respect it deserves.

Ginwala, in her actions over the arms deal and Yengeni, is part of that trend. She, too, has fallen in step with a stronger party line.

But while it is true that democracy means that the majority must rule, it is also true that, in a context like ours, where "democracy is fragile" (to quote Ginwala), special care must be taken to protect it.

Care must be taken to reach consensus. Care must be taken to allow minority parties to have their say.

And care should be taken when Parliament finds itself in conflict with the executive to ensure that the interests of democracy - and not those of one party - are upheld.

An effort must also be made to make parliamentary debates a genuine engagement.

Unfortunately, Parliament is fast becoming a place where parties hurl insults at each other and where the person who shouts loudest, rather than the one who argues best, wins.

A slanging match in which members of Parliament blindly follow their party loyalties does not serve democracy.  

With acknowledgment to the Sunday Times.