IT IS now more than six weeks since the electorate of this nation determined, at yet another free and fair national election, the new government of Guyana. However, to follow the tantrums and political antics of the two opposition parties any sane and objective individual would understand that while the PPP/C lost control of the National Assembly by a single seat, the APNU (some now say APNC) and AFC did NOT WIN the government.
Yet, according to their self-serving deals and arrogant demands, the opposition parties seem to think that they can run a government from the opposition benches in parliament (or via street protests?). Take, for example, the demand being voiced by ex-GDF Brigadier David Granger that they must be “involved” in the actual crafting of the national budget for fiscal year 2012.
Who, or what gives this privilege to the APNU/AFC? Surely they must have the capacity not to expediently confuse “consultation” with a demand for participation in “crafting” the budget. This, after all, is the constitutional and democratic right of a freely elected government, as headed by Executive President Donald Ramotar, and of which Samuel Hinds is Prime Minister and Dr Ashni Singh is Minister of Finance.
There is NO precedent in our Caribbean Community, or within the wider Commonwealth of nations, for this demand by an opposition of two parties to selectively flaunt their plurality of one seat in parliament and ignore a given official offer for “constructive consultation” in preference for a non-existent constitutional “right” of involvement in formulation of the national budget. 
It is relevant to recall here that APNU (the PNC in new clothing) keeps talking and behaving as if its leadership is still to come to terms with the harsh reality that once again the combined opposition have failed to WIN the government at the latest free and fair election since the restoration of electoral democracy in Guyana in October 1992.
The arithmetic of the November 28 poll, as declared by the bi-partisan Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), and endorsed by national, regional and international observers as being based on a ‘free and fair’ process, revealed that the incumbent PPP/C secured 32 of the 65 parliamentary seats with 166,340 or 48.62 percent of the valid ballots cast.
This single largest bloc of votes represented 19 seats gained at the national level and 13 regional.
By comparison, APNU got 139,678 or 40.83 percent for its 26 seats (16 national and 10 regional); while the AFC obtained its seven seats with 35,333 or (10.33 percent) votes—five national and two regional.         
An objective assessment of the collective decision by the voters who participated in the electoral process would point to an expressed desire for cooperation in Guyana’s national interest. To his credit, President Ramotar, though quite new in that position as executive Head of State, swiftly moved to chart a course for a tripartite working arrangement with the PPP/C, APNU and AFC.
Specifically, as reported following the initial meeting held at his invitation, the President had suggested an approach that would include identified, high-level representatives of the three parties in the National Assembly who would, for a start, come forward with proposals to address priority national issues. The President was clear in his intention that one such priority would be arriving at a consensus in the election of a Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
Instead, the opposition parties chose to frustrate the tripartite committee process by deliberately failing to identify, as agreed, their representatives. They were to subsequently “join forces”, as President Ramotar noted at a media briefing on Friday, “to take away the positions of both Speaker and Deputy Speaker from the ruling PPP/C…”
In so doing, not only has the APNU/AFC coalition of expediency created a precedent in having both Speaker and Deputy Speaker, contrary to acceptable norms in a multi-party parliamentary democracy. They have also implicitly rejected the government’s offer for structured, tripartite consultations. This myopic politics of opportunism is now very much in the public domain for assessment and judgement.
These are the two parties that had engaged, prior to and during the 2011 election, in much talk in favour of “national unity” and “democratic governance”. What a travesty! Question is, if not the path of structured consultation to enhance democratic governance, then what? Extra-parliamentary tactics to create instability, disunity and lack of progress? 
The APNU/AFC coalition of convenience should know that from its history, prior to 1992 and since, the PPP/C will not succumb to political blackmail. But, with the cooperation of representative sectors, institutions, agencies and civil society in general, can be expected to stand firm in defence of the legitimacy of democratic governance with orderly social and economic development for the benefit of all citizens of this nation.