The parliamentary opposition parties, APNU and AFC,  are propagating one thing, but practising another.
Indeed, this is the season of  great hypocrisy, but even  greater hypocrites! Since the convening of the current 10th Parliament, the nation is being educated in the lessons of classical political hypocrisy of a most dangerous kind, executed by some of the most dangerous types imaginable. This is not a case of knit-picking, nor of labelling mischievously; instead, this is a justified  description of the personalities that masquerade  as representatives of the people – national leaders, and they belong to the political opposition.
They are  deserving of such a description as persons who advocate a particular line only to pursue another.
Their  entire raison d’etre during this testing time has been dark  deceit and double dealing. Take the issue of the nominaton of  Speaker of the House, a most  sordid affair as it turned out to be.
As the entire nation would have been told innumerable times by the opposition parties, APNU and AFC, particularly  with the results of a minority government, that they were prepared to work with the administration in a consensual manner for the larger goal of the national interest. This  offer  had been good news, matching a similar sentiment offered by newly elected President Donald Ramotar. These were  more so welcomed by an apprehensive citizenry, but as events later showed – both opposition parties tore to pieces the much needed  prescription for dialogue as a process for resolution of challenges, by grabbing in a unilateral manner, the Speaker’s chair. This single  act laid bare the dangerous fork-tongued  ideology of the two parties, and has laid the foundation for even greater  mistrust  of the opposition’s future  intentions.
One can remember, the many times, APNU chairman Dr Roopnarain reiterating his party’s intention of seeking solutions through dialogue should it win the presidency, even offering to invite some members from the PPP/C to serve in an  APNU-led government, should such have occurred. But even though it did not secure the Executive, such a strategy of consensuality and dialogue was still an absolute imperative, given the minority equation that has since occurred, and given the important berth  that both now occupy in such a configuration. It stands to reason, therefore, that had these two  parties been allowed by the constitution to form the  government, it can be safely concluded that they would have trampled on the dialogue and consensuality process, in the same manner that they as opposition currently  have done.
Essentially, both APNU and the AFC have demonstrated this common trait of hypocrisy, jointly.