At mo­ments of in­tense po­lit­i­cal con­flict, it be­comes nec­es­sary to rise above per­son­al­i­ties, par­ty loy­al­ties and par­ti­san pas­sions and re­turn to first prin­ci­ples.

For Trinidad and To­ba­go’s par­lia­men­tar­i­ans, those prin­ci­ples are em­bod­ied in the oath tak­en be­fore as­sum­ing of­fice.

Every elect­ed or ap­point­ed Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment swears, or solemn­ly af­firms, to “bear true faith and al­le­giance to Trinidad and To­ba­go,” to “up­hold the Con­sti­tu­tion and the law,” and to “con­sci­en­tious­ly and im­par­tial­ly dis­charge” re­spon­si­bil­i­ties to the peo­ple of this coun­try.

These are not mere­ly cer­e­mo­ni­al words. They es­tab­lish the stan­dard by which those en­trust­ed with pub­lic of­fice should con­duct them­selves.

The first oblig­a­tion is to the na­tion. Par­ty al­le­giance, while in­evitable in po­lit­i­cal life, can­not over­ride a par­lia­men­tar­i­an’s con­sti­tu­tion­al du­ty to serve the in­ter­ests of Trinidad and To­ba­go and its cit­i­zens.

The oath al­so re­quires fi­deli­ty to the Con­sti­tu­tion and the law. That com­mit­ment ex­tends to re­spect­ing the in­sti­tu­tions through which democ­ra­cy func­tions, in­clud­ing Par­lia­ment it­self and the in­de­pen­dence of those who serve with­in it.

Equal­ly im­por­tant is the pledge to act con­sci­en­tious­ly and im­par­tial­ly. Those words call for dili­gence, fair­ness, re­spon­si­bil­i­ty and a will­ing­ness to place the pub­lic in­ter­est above po­lit­i­cal ex­pe­di­en­cy. They do not de­mand agree­ment. Ro­bust de­bate and dif­fer­ing view­points are es­sen­tial to democ­ra­cy. But they do re­quire dis­agree­ment to be ex­pressed in ways that pre­serve re­spect for de­mo­c­ra­t­ic in­sti­tu­tions and those who par­tic­i­pate in them.

These prin­ci­ples are par­tic­u­lar­ly rel­e­vant in the cur­rent po­lit­i­cal cli­mate.

The Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Bill has gen­er­at­ed deep di­vi­sions over na­tion­al se­cu­ri­ty, polic­ing pow­ers, con­sti­tu­tion­al safe­guards and the treat­ment of com­mu­ni­ties. Such dis­agree­ment is not in­her­ent­ly un­healthy. Par­lia­ment ex­ists pre­cise­ly to ex­am­ine leg­is­la­tion, test com­pet­ing ar­gu­ments and en­sure laws with­stand rig­or­ous scruti­ny.

Sen­a­tors were en­ti­tled, in­deed ob­lig­at­ed, to as­sess the leg­is­la­tion in­de­pen­dent­ly and vote ac­cord­ing to their judge­ment. In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tors, in par­tic­u­lar, oc­cu­py a con­sti­tu­tion­al role that is nei­ther an ex­ten­sion of Gov­ern­ment nor Op­po­si­tion.

What should con­cern the coun­try is not dis­agree­ment it­self but the de­te­ri­o­ra­tion of po­lit­i­cal dis­course sur­round­ing it.

In Jan­u­ary, dur­ing de­bate on ear­li­er leg­is­la­tion, ques­tions were raised about the in­de­pen­dence of Sen­a­tors. More re­cent­ly, crit­i­cism of the In­de­pen­dent Bench, fol­low­ing its op­po­si­tion to the Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Bill, de­scend­ed in­to lan­guage that did lit­tle to ad­vance pub­lic un­der­stand­ing of the is­sues at stake.

Sim­i­lar­ly trou­bling were sug­ges­tions that spe­cial op­er­a­tions would be con­fined to Gov­ern­ment-con­trolled con­stituen­cies and se­lect­ed To­ba­go dis­tricts. Polic­ing pow­ers be­long to the State and must be ex­er­cised on be­half of all cit­i­zens, re­gard­less of po­lit­i­cal af­fil­i­a­tion. While the Gov­ern­ment ar­gues the op­er­a­tions are in­tend­ed to com­bat vi­o­lent crime and gang ac­tiv­i­ty, con­cerns about equal­i­ty be­fore the law and con­sti­tu­tion­al safe­guards can­not be dis­missed.

The an­swer to these dis­agree­ments is not greater di­vi­sion.

Every par­lia­men­tar­i­an, whether Gov­ern­ment, Op­po­si­tion or In­de­pen­dent, would do well to re­flect on the words spo­ken up­on en­ter­ing of­fice: bear true faith and al­le­giance to Trinidad and To­ba­go; up­hold the Con­sti­tu­tion and the law; dis­charge re­spon­si­bil­i­ties con­sci­en­tious­ly; act im­par­tial­ly.

Those com­mit­ments de­mand more than se­cur­ing votes or pre­vail­ing in de­bate. They re­quire re­straint in mo­ments of anger, re­spect for dif­fer­ing views and recog­ni­tion that po­lit­i­cal op­po­nents and crit­ics are fel­low cit­i­zens of the same Re­pub­lic.

The oath was not made to a par­ty. It was made to Trinidad and To­ba­go. And the con­duct of those who gov­ern should and must re­flect that solemn promise.