Even the most scrupulously law-abiding of Bermuda’s residents is unlikely to be entirely happy with all of Bermuda’s laws.

But in a community based on the rule of law, we are all bound to respect and observe even legislation which we fundamentally oppose. The alternative, of course, is the surest road to anarchy.

We are all free to disagree with laws that run counter to our belief systems or principles. But we are not free to disobey them.

In a similar vein, while we are all free to express our displeasure with certain enactments of our legislature that freedom does not give blanket licence to any critic or activist to disrupt the lawmaking process.

For in a system predicated on the rule of law, no individual, no matter how high an office he occupies, nor any group, no matter how strident and demonstrative, is entitled to bring the people’s business to a halt.

Last week, the Shadow Immigration Minister led a crowd of protesters to the Senate to voice their opposition to new long-term residency regulations being considered by the Upper House.

At one point the demonstration spilled over into the Senate Chamber and led to the session being temporarily suspended.

The immigration directives were eventually approved after legislative business resumed.

Subsequently, the shadow minister claimed the rally he organised was an exercise in “people power”. But the agitated climax of the march, which entirely drowned out the Senate debate in a confusing crescendo of noise, was anything but that.

For in a political system such as ours, genuine “people power” is in fact exercised by the members of our legislative bodies. Once the marchers interrupted the Senate proceedings, what we witnessed was actually a diminishment of our democracy.

Let’s hope the incident did not set an unhappy new precedent. The integrity of the law and the lawmaking process must always be upheld no matter how strongly we may object to particular pieces of legislation.

If this Island ever reaches the point where any faction feels free to routinely defy or disrupt our constitutional or legislative arrangements, then no lawmaker would be sure of his mandate, no law would be immune from strong-arm pressure tactics and, ultimately, none of us would feel safe from one another.

The spirit and intent of the parliamentary process was particularly well summed up by John C Calhoun, a celebrated 19th century South Carolina legislator.

As both a member of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, Calhoun was a political rarity: a lawmaker who always placed bedrock principles ahead of what was merely expedient, even when his positions were completely at variance with the prevailing public mood.

“This House is at liberty to decide on this question according to the dictates of its best judgment,” he once told fellow congressmen. “Are we bound in all cases to do what is popular? Have the people of this country snatched the power of deliberation from this body?

“If we act in opposition to conscience and reason, are political errors, once prevalent, never to be corrected?”

Legislators have an obligation, as Calhoun said, to bring their consciences and reasoning abilities to bear on the issues of the day, and not merely to do what is popular. Particularly what may be popular with only small, vocal and unrepresentative constituency, as was the case in Bermuda last week.

“I never know what South Carolina thinks of a measure,” he once said. “I act to the best of my judgment and according to my conscience. If she approves, well and good. If she does not, and wishes anyone to take my place, I am ready to vacate. We are even.”

Similarly, we are free to replace our legislators at elections if we disapprove of their actions. We are even with them, too, for they are ultimately answerable to us.

But if we are to maintain our system of laws and lawmaking, we are obliged to express our disapproval in the ballot box, not by overrunning the debating chambers every time we disagree with our legislators’ opinions. That is how real people power is exercised in a parliamentary democracy.