AS national leaders, it is their utmost responsibility to do what is best for the people and the country, which some aim or aspire to serve at the highest level.Though it is quite natural that leaders will have different aspirations and are guided by the needs and wants of their constituencies, it should be minimum at least that in their representation, they do not substitute national interests for partisan gains.

To do so will be nothing but an overt attempt of selling their country short. This, in a synopsis, adequately captures the sentiments of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Leader David Granger and former Finance Minister in the People’s National Congress (PNC) Government Carl Greenidge on the European Union’s (EU) withholding of funding for sea defence and the sugar industry.

Given that we are in an election season, it is a foregone conclusion that both of these gentlemen will be utilising the political platforms to speak about development of Guyana, and quite certainly will dwell lengthily on the sugar industry and perhaps to a lesser extent, the need to protect the coastline against the rising threats of climate change.

From a cursory glance of their approach, it appears as though they see nothing wrong in recognising the need for development, but surprisingly or not so surprisingly by now, they also seem to see nothing wrong in doing a volt-face in supporting developmental projects that will have wide-ranging national impact.
The statements by Granger and Greenidge are reflective of the general posture of the Opposition.

And, from all appearances, they have put themselves in a position where the view is unavoidable, that any project that will put the Government in good light and reflect its thrust of continuation of progress, and building a modern Guyana, will be visited by the red light.

In this case, it is not only the Opposition voting down a project, but also giving their full support for the withholding of funding for critical projects by the EU over claims of Guyana not fully complying with eligibility criteria.

By their statements, what Granger and Greenidge have done is to lay bare the nature of their parochial politics. It shows that they care less for some of their supporters and people who traditionally support the PPP.

Their action is bewildering since in the normal scheme of things, it would be natural for them to call for transparency, accountability, speedy delivery of work and improvement of production.

But they chose to side step these calls by praising a seemingly vindictive move by the EU, which from all indications, appears to be a swipe against a democratically-elected Government of a sovereign nation over its move to prorogue Parliament.

The Parliament was prorogue to facilitate dialogue with the Opposition on a number of contentious matters but was met with their obstinate refusal.
Looking back at the actions of APNU, the support for the withholding of funds for the sugar industry is not a strange decision, as one of its members at a press briefing last year had called for the closing down of the industry, even though the industry provides thousands of jobs for locals, both directly and indirectly.
So in the scheme of things, the recent statements by Granger and Greenidge are at least consistent with the views expressed by one of its members, who see sugar workers as the backbone of the PPP being in office and a block to the APNU gaining power.
Undoubtedly, many APNU supporters, in a time manner would have also benefited from the sea defence projects through the provision of employment or the protection of their livelihoods and homes.
But this is not part of their immediate interests. The current power play is a telling signal that they are more interested now than ever before to gain as much attention and support as possible, regardless of the consequences, as they seek to attain the seat of power at the May 11 polls.