POLITICAL coalitions are known to be very delicate and tedious ‘put togethers’ that are concluded after much discussion, that is usually reduced to much horse trading; hence their tenuous and brittle nature. 

In fact, it is the type of option, a nightmare, that any political leader, particularly heads of government, would like to avoid, all things on their political strategy map being equal. In reality, it is the coming together of what is traditionally labelled ‘strange bedfellows’, with these arrangements either formed prior to elections, such as the Peoples Partnership coalition in Trinidad, but moreso after an inconclusive post–election result, as the British and Surinamese experiences a while ago.
The aim of such cobbled arrangements is always to mount an effective challenge to, and in the process, wrest power from the incumbent party in government. Generally, coalitions are very popular in the European Union constellation, a rarity in Asia, as well as in English–speaking countries; not popular in Africa; and non-existent in Latin America.
Guyana, historically, has had one experience of a coalition arrangement, contrived by both the United States and Britain, and formed in the aftermath of the 1964 elections, between the then Burnham–led People’s National Congress (PNC) and Peter D’Aguiar-led United Force (UF) political parties. The plot: to oust the then PPP government. Within four years, the United Force, as the junior partner, was sidelined, and eventually ousted from that government by its senior partner. This was to have paved the way for the almost three decades of illegal regime rule perpetuated on the people of Guyana.
Now, again, the PNC, the central cog in a dubious wheel of a coalition called the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), is again  entering into another plot, this time  with the Alliance For Change (AFC), with the mission as in 1964 – to oust the  Peoples Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) from government.
For all the reasons that both parties in this political contrivance could muster as reasons for such a decision, it is not convincing. Even their proposed mish mash of programmes, in terms of what they would initially seek to implement, if in government, is  not  convincing.
OBSERVER posits that based on what has been said about the behind the scenes negotiations, that it was purely an exercise in who will get what; in other words, egos were at the centre of deliberations, rather than the well-being of the nation. This ought not to be any surprise, as the entire score of the Tenth Parliament is a  clear summary of power grabbing forays executed by both the APNU and the AFC.
Therefore, it is rational to query that since both these parties did not exercise any consideration/care relative to the very urgent matters, still unresolved, at that time – can they be trusted/relied on if in government?
OBSERVER should ask of the AFC, whether they have forgotten the lessons of the 1964 coalition, when a monster was assisted into power by a similarly minor opposition party, only to be rendered a mere bystander, as the former  began to flex its muscles menacingly? Is it that the now AFC, because it so badly wants political power, has entered into an unholy alliance?
This Opposition party has simply duped its many constituents, by finally allying with a sister Opposition party that had destroyed this nation.
Is that its gratitude to all its supporters who had reposed so much faith in its promises?