POLITICS OF CONVENIENCE
– The dangerous dance of the political opposition
THE unique parliamentary  situation  of a minority government for the first time in the post-independence history of Guyana, was one that  was never going to be without its tremendous challenges, given  its resultant  peculiarities, colliding with  those from the nation’s  well known socio-political  history  for the past 50 years. But it was one that, if judged by the groundswell  of public opinion, was broadly welcomed by all sides, with the much held belief and hope that it can very well usher in a new  era in the line of political cooperation between the two political principals, and other stakeholders.
Pledges from the two main  political opposition parties of working  together with the PPP/C government in arriving at common positions on important national issues were plentiful, with  President Donald Ramotar not only  concurring verbally but also laying the foundation for  future meaningful cooperation, with a series of discussions/consultations. The nation was encouraged and hopes  were high for  a practical conversion from adversarial politics to one of consensuality, as advocated by both APNU and the AFC.
Is there really hope  for  a genuine working together of the two political opposition parties with the executive, especially when one takes into consideration their  deliberate omission of the administration from talks surrounding the selection of  the House Speaker, and the manner in which the selection has finally been done?
If one were to take APNU’s and the AFC’s strategy into consideration, then one will have to conclude that they have given a very discouraging start to this new dispensation; and, since trust is going to be the political  epicentre  and platform of  this challenging period that lies ahead, one has to  be skeptical.
One must therefore understand the deep disappointment of President Donald Ramotar, who has shown clearly that he is indeed committed to working with the political opposition, not only on matters of mutual interest but also on the wider national agenda.
This is an opportunity that APNU and the AFC ought to have accepted  as  a necessary start to a phase that will call for the highest forms  of selflessness and love  of one’s country. How can these two parties, both of whom have accused the PPP/C government of practising the ‘winner takes all’ line of governance, defend their criticism of a practice that has been  described as the cause of  Guyana’s  socio-political problems?
It has to be contradictory on their part, not to commence a working relationship with the government so as to bring about the desired changes which they  would have both  outlined in their numerous public pronouncements.
The observed actions on their approach to the  decision on the nomination of the Speaker can only be described  as  a naked grab for power, and not about the  consensual route for settling such  important matters. Where is the tripartite approach that both leaders of the opposition have agreed?
It is interesting to note that both  these party leaders, in post-Parliament comments on Thursday, still continue to espouse their willingness and intentions to work in a spirit of cooperation  with the government.
All lofty promises, until both understand that working together in this uncharted milieu  has to be a consistent process; one that is underpinned by genuinity and trust, that will undoubtedly encourage and nurture an atmosphere of consensus; and, not playing the dangerous  card of convenience, as seems to be their strategy, depending on what issue is on the table.
Both parties must remember that history  will  adjudicate their actions during what will probably be the most important phase of this country’s political life. With their present tactics, they can only be found wanting.