Parliamentary opposition Leader, David Granger, is increasingly revealing a surprising capacity for fork-tongued public talk in order to court political support in his favour.
But first let us extend congratulations to him for being elected as the new leader of the PNCR by a reported substantial majority vote, over Carl Greenidge, to succeed Robert Corbin. Corbin did not seek re-election at the party’s recent delegates congress.
Following his declared electoral victory in a late-night session of vote-counting, Granger gave the proud assurance that the PNCR was in “secure, sincere hands…”
Well, was not this also the case while the successors to the late President Forbes Burnham held the leadership of the PNCR, namely the late President Desmond Hoyte, and for many years thereafter Corbin? Were they also not “sincere” in what they were doing as “secured” leaders?
Despite their respective strengths, and personal and political commitments, let it not be forgotten that while the PNC held state power for 28 years, the party that Granger now leads, NEVER won a free and fair election under either the leadership of Burnham, Hoyte or Corbin.
Now, in a pathetic attempt to cast blame on the PPP for successive legitimate governments established on the basis of DEMOCRATIC national elections,  Mr Granger is piously denouncing “winner-take-all politics”, as if unaware or unmindful that this was the fundamental basis, the norm of governance politics by the party he has just been chosen to lead
At last year’s November 28 general and regional elections, by which the incumbent PPP/C retained the executive presidency and again emerged with the single largest bloc of  valid votes, though losing control of the 65-member National Assembly by a single seat, the PNCR and the minority AFC felt compelled to form a parliamentary alliance of convenience to obstruct social and economic advancement of Guyana, and foster social divisions.
One noticeable feature of this alliance, forged between the AFC and the PNCR’s dominant partner, APNU, is to make a virtue of rhetoric about the tripartite consultative process  in governance (PPPC/APNU and AFC) while, in reality,the opposition remains hell bent on an obstructionist path by ill-considered, opportunistic actions in and out of Parliament.

The Budget & Linden
The most disgusting of this myopic, dangerous politics was the shocking cuts of approximately G20 billion allocated expenditures from the 2012 national budget.
That development necessitated the government in having to seek a court ruling (still in progress) and also a return to parliament for the restoration of about GUY$13.6B of the slashed allocations. This initiative is scheduled to take place on Thursday (August 9).
In between the budget cuts and Granger’s election as PNCR leader, there were two quite significant political developments:
First, his somersault, under pressure from the AFC, on an AGREEMENT with the government—made public in Parliament by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds—for a phased hike, specifically detailed, in electricity tariff for consumers in Linden.
The government’s intention, as well known by the people, irrespective of race or party affiliation, is to bring to an end the very costly subsidy that has already chalked up billions of dollars in state funds.
This situation is in sharp contrast to the financial obligations that electricity consumers in the rest of Guyana are routinely honouring, but being expediently ignored by the new “messiahs” who  are busy offering, rhetorically, their brand of ‘national unity’.
Further, following the political agitation, with a mix of race and partisan politics, among Lindeners, which would have  contributed to the very regrettable explosion of angry protests and the tragic loss of three lives when the police intervened, Granger as then APNU chairman, was calling for the removal of the police officer who was then in command at the scene of the turmoil.
Guyanese across the racial/political divide would also recall that Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, without promptings, had himself called on the Police Commissioner (ag) to pursue such an initiative.
The Commissioner, for his part, thought it necessary to make  clear that the Guyana Police Force, and his office in particular, was under “NO political instructions”, at any time, with respect to handling of the situation in Linden.
But here again, Granger, having somersaulted on his electricity tariff agreement with the government, had another political surprise to offer. He initiated a motion of “no confidence” against Home Affairs Minister Rohee for alleged involvement in the uprising in Linden which continued to pose serious threats to law and order, even after the tragic death of three of the protesters.
That’s not all. Granger is now engaging in political footworks to distance himself from the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Commission of Inquiry which is to have a foreign component). Before the eruption of the Linden crisis, it was agreed that the TOR would be disclosed by August 2.
However, Granger was emotionally telling those in attendance at Friday’s ceremonial unveiling of a monument in Buxton dedicated to honouring 400 Guyanese said to have been killed by the police and “death squad” elements, that Minister Rohee “will be pushed out of office not only by the motion in the National Assembly but public opinion….”
Is this another signal for politically instigated demonstrations and the other actions in the name of a new form of governance, based on a one-seat majority by the combined opposition? Is the rule of law to be expediently ignored in favour of satisfying the thirst for state-controlled political power?
Having widened the consultative process to include stakeholders’ representatives, in addition to the main opposition, and specifically APNU’s Granger, President Donald Ramotar has rightly decided to go ahead with arrangements for the independent inquiry  into the still-simmering disturbances at Linden that resulted in the tragic loss of three lives.
A democratically elected government and Guyana, as a nation, cannot be blackmailed into genuflecting to the narrow, self-serving politicking of any party or its leader.
We had previously commented on the implications of separate warnings against “the wild men” (as alerted by Mr Robert Corbin) and “the extremists” in our midst, as noted earlier by Dr Roger Luncheon.  More later.