Their previous political culture was feudal at the social level and centered around a monarchial court at the political level. Institutions like companies and bureaucracies were intuitively obvious as modernizations of noble "houses" and their networks of patronage.
Overall political leadership and its responsibilities were also obvious enough, but were better understood when almost all real power was "in" rather than "out". Or, fights occur as factional struggles within a ruling group, just a factions naturally form in courts over possible alternatives and rival "houses" - without, however, challenging the stability of rule by a continuous institution. The modern version was just a dominant political party - so those were also obvious. Real power and figurehead relationships are also obvious.
But the flow of power upward as representative of uppity commoners was not obvious, indeed did not even seem to fit the party idea. In the past, power stemmed for the socially similar divided houses of nobility, indirectly from their patronage systems - on the one hand - and outward from the court as deciding disputes between them, on the other hand. Not up from the ranks. The ranks pledge their loyalty to a social organization and do what is in its interests. Politics consists of these social organizations shifting their factional alliances with one another.
When trying to operate systems meant to articulate positions from below, consensually, the nominal rather than real powers (constitutional offices, rather than party positions or social influence) have various de jure powers assigned to them. But in the normal course of events these do not matter. They are pro forma, the real decisions have been made in cabinet meetings and board rooms and party caucuses, using the old feudal forms of behavior. When one side tries to use them as real powers to fight the decisions made off the floor, they are seen as "out of line", as usurping expected behaviors, as "misusing" them. Appealing to legal powers is a deviation from the normal, and is read as a brute power play.
And the old system had ways of handling brute power plays. "Knights" escalated to violence in the service of their faction. That is what these "parliamentarians" are doing here.
In the west, we see parties as not entirely legitimate institutions, as de facto ways of grabbing and controlling the legal state. We put up with them because they work in practice, though we are endlessly annoyed with the practical realities of how they work (bribes to finance them, cynical leaders spurning idealistic rankers, lack of a clear choice when the leaders strive for the same winning positions, etc).
Well, I think in their background political and social culture, the parties seem normal and legitimate, and it is the parliaments and congresses and elections that seem contrived, merely practical, but somewhat ornate and at times seemingly pointless devices.
Just as we see something illegitimate in party behaviors when they change outcomes compared to what would happen with democracy or parliamentary procedure (open debate, any amendments, up or down vote etc), they see something seemingly illegitimate when those parliamentary procedures are manipulated to produce outcomes different from the parties' smoke filled rooms.
In this particular case, off the floor it was decided the President had to go, as the eventual vote indicates. But on the floor, some of his supporters tried to use the fact that the speaker in their parliament controls the agenda, de jure, to prevent it from coming up for a vote. They manipulated this position as they would have fought over physical control of the Privy Seal in a monarchy.
So when presidential supporters made this sort of de jure "power play", the appropriate response seemed obvious - escalate to violence and physically eject them from the position whose de jure powers they were "usurping" for ends not agreed off the floor.
That's my interpretation.