THE  Opposition’s ‘massacre’ of the budget last month (budget cuts), that has left some 300 workers on the precipitous edge of their employment, and concomitantly threatens the socio-economic well-being of the nation, has left the nation in a state of uncertainty, not knowing what the immediate future particularly holds.
Again, one must ask these questions – was such a display of power and diktat necessary? Were there any credible reasons for these cuts, endangering programmes that have done so much for Guyana?
These must be the burning questions pondered by the nation, and even many of those on the opposition side of the House.
One cannot help but recall the now famous statement by APNU’S point man on finance, Carl Greenidge, that  no apologies will be forthcoming in terms of GINA’s staff whose jobs are threatened. This can only be described as the language of the irresponsible, and not that of a representative of the People.
It is even more absurdly shocking, coming from one who would have served in the capacity of Secretary General of the African, Caribbean and Pacific states, and who would have been au fait with the cuts in the European sugar quota from these three regions whom he once represented.
He would have known of the results that such a reduction occasioned: Massive reduction in revenue for these states that have resulted in closure of sugar estates, for example. How could he in all sanity, champion such a motion? Such questions must be left for the followers of APNU  and the general opposition, who by now must be ruing their tragic error in ever casting votes for these unconscionable members of the House.
As one who loves his country, and will always support its onward march to social peace and economic prosperity for all, there is still belief that within APNU, there are conscionable members who are very much disturbed by what has occurred within recent times. Did they vote with their conscience? Or were they coerced?
Is Granger in charge of critical decision-making in his party? Or is he hamstrung by the PNC old guard, inclusive of Corbin? What of the definite hawkish line being advocated by the AFC, whose line appears to be non-compromise, even if there is a possibility for consensus?  There is this general perception that Granger wants to make the right decisions, in terms of working with President Donald Ramotar. These are the challenges in this peculiar situation that are expected, thus making the question of shared governance, inclusive of even agreement on issues among the opposition, very difficult.
But at the end of it all, wise leadership is what must be placed at the forefront of any consideration by Granger, as Leader of the Opposition. President Donald Ramotar has been keeping his end of the bargain, by consistently offering the opportunity for dialogue; APNU’s leader David Granger must now join him in piloting this nation away from the dangerous tides that now threaten its onward journey.
This is not too much to ask a patriot, as David Granger purports to be?