The role and responsibilities of national leaders, particularly political ones, are what must be highlighted against the background of last Wednesday’s shooting deaths of four persons by security forces, at Linden.
Now, sadly enough, that such a tragedy has occurred, constituents/followers of, especially, the political opposition, must deeply reflect on the quality of leadership and their actions on this issue of the increased electricity tariff, and what such has led to.
A tragedy that ought not to have happened has occurred; and the question that inevitably comes to mind is whether it  could have been avoided had the opposition leadership not reneged on  their initial agreement, to remove the Linden subsidy,  made with the Executive,  supporting the intended increase; then travelling to the mining town in a show of support for what can be described as a questionable exercise – protest.
Today, their  entire leadership stands indicted for an incident that poses a threat to the peace and stability, apart from having potential consequences for the future development, of this nation.
The leadership role, especially of  APNU’s David Granger must be examined in this tragedy of the Linden deaths.
Were many Guyanese, Lindeners inclusive, been aware that the retired Brigadier had, in discussions with President  Ramotar, agreed on the increase of power charges for the bauxite town?
And, are they further aware that he changed course, because of other political forces that had travelled to Linden with the sole purpose of scuttling his initial position? Also, it must be highlighted that, following this agreement, Prime Minister Samuel Hinds announced in Parliament that there was support from Granger for both the increase in electricity charges, as well as a gradualist approach to its implementation.
One understands the dilemma of political leaders who are well intentioned, as Granger really is – that they are faced with the supreme challenge of doing what they know is right, as against having to follow the dictates of their constituents, particularly when opposing influences are at work. But this is the supreme test of true leadership.
It must be recalled, that the TUC’S Lincoln Lewis did  pronounce that there must be consultations with the people of Linden on the removal of the subsidy, before any decision, and that he had been prepared to challenge Granger on this aspect.
This explains the  signal error on the part of APNU’S  leader, for he and his party leaders should have travelled to Linden, to explain the  necessity for the subsidy’s removal, and the rationality of the  gradual approach for future payment. This ought to have been his and the coalition’s responsibility, rather than allowing the extremists to lay the groundwork for the events that were to follow.
As tough and as heated  as the exchanges would have been with his Linden constituents, Granger  would have been seen as a leader who stood  his ground on a matter of principle, with many  of the residents accepting the status quo. Instead, his somersault has contributed to this dark episode in the township’s history.
Again, it must be emphasised that the lesson has been lost on political leaders such as Granger – that as leaders, their every move and action are followed. More so their statements; precisely, his denial  of the agreement struck with the president. And, as is mostly the case, these influences set in motion currents that, when unleashed, become uncontrollable, often degenerating into the kind of disasters, such as the Linden deaths.