AT the invitation from President Donald Ramotar, another opportunity avails itself for meaningful discussions with Leader of the Parliamentary Opposition, Mr David Granger, relating to matters critical to the national well-being. 

It would seem that Granger has already decided on this avenue for talks, as a ‘no no’, as it is his opinion, that such should only take place, after a re-opening of Parliament.
According to the Opposition Leader, his party unanimously supports such a position. We assume too, that a similar position is the mindset of the smaller Alliance For Change (AFC) Opposition party.
Thus we ask this question, whether discussions would not assist in breaking the ice, thus setting the stage for consensus not only with regard to extant matters; but also as a mode for the future direction of this country?
Though we understand, and do accept the adversarial nature of politics, we also contend that such ought not to stand in the way, or be a barrier, especially where the national interest is concern.
We do believe that sincere discussions in any situation, no matter how protracted, can bring results for our nation, if the political will does exist; for at the end of the day, it has to be about Guyana, and nothing else.
Despite the seemingly intransigent and inexplicable position that has mostly been the forte of Granger, we have every reason to believe that he is a patriot and is amenable to reason. However, there is every reason to believe that he has to contend with the radicals within his party. We recall his concurrence on the question of an increase in social security pensions, when he said that in politics one does not get everything one wants at the same time, concluding that it is ‘some you win, some you lose’ situation at times. He also recognised that it was only fair that Linden’s electricity tariff be brought within the national grid, where consumers of the mining town should be asked to pay their fair share of energy charges. But he reneged on that agreement, because of what was perceived to be pressure from the radical fringe of his party.
Again, based on all his pronouncements he seemed not to have been in favour of supporting the AFC’s ‘no-confidence’ motion. Yet, in the end, his declared intention of support towards this unnecessary pathway precipitated the Presidential Proclamation. He should let party and leadership understand that their notion of politics and Guyana is unrealistic, reckless, and dangerous!
Mr. Granger should by now learn that leadership of an official political Opposition is one of a constitutional office that carries enormous responsibility. It is about taking into consideration what is good for the nation, and not about the politics of NO. It is also about having to quell extremists within one’s party, especially when what they support do not lend toward the good of the nation.
Thus Granger should seriously consider the future of this country, taking into consideration the long road that it has travelled to this moment, when his input is required for its further advancement. He stands in judgment by the nation.
The time is now, Mr. Granger. Let not this opportunity pass!