Whatever may be the true motive behind the politically myopic-obsession

of the APNU/AFC opposition for their ritual cuttings of billions of dollars from annual budgetary estimates, it is more than time that they pause to reflect on the tremendous harm being done to Guyana’s future.
For a start, it is to be hoped  that they would give serious consideration to the  just announced initiative by the Private Sector Commission IPSC) to organise  an “Economic Summit” of key national stakeholders  with the intention of bridging the prevailing harmful political divide.
People of goodwill, with Guyana’s best interest in mind, would, we feel, applaud this announced move by the PSC. They cannot be unaware of the casual, if not callous response to President Donald Ramotar’s initial invitation for a process of constructive tripartite dialogue involving the three parties with representation in the National Assembly  to avoid what has recurred with senseless, spiteful reductions, even total deletions, of estimates of expenditure before passage last week of the 2013 Budget.
On Wednesday, the PSC chairman, Ronald Webster, shared a press conference with executive colleagues, Ramesh Dookoo, Ramesh Persaud and Kit Nascimento, at which the reasons for the proposed ‘economic summit were articulated.
As reported by the media, including the Chronicle, they emphasised how urgent and necessary it is for the government and opposition to cooperate in doing “everything possible” to find “common ground” and avoid threatened economic dislocations with job losses and new challenges in an unfavourable investment climate.
It is of interest to note that at the press conference, the PSC’s representatives considered it relevant to point out that during the meetings with the government and the opposition, the government had left “the door open” while, for its part, the opposition took the position that this  “opening” was “not wide enough”.
Impartial observers could conclude that this kind of political  semantics on the part of the opposition may well prove unhelpful in the dialogue process ahead of the intended structured “economic summit”.
How “wide”, for instance, would be “wide enough” for the “open door” so that both APNU and AFC could enable the PSC  in promoting the goodwill required for  desired positive outcomes on the way forward to restore and sustain a healthy climate for economic investment to enhance the prospects for further national development?
Interestingly enough, the PSC’s patriotic initiative to organise an “economic summit”  came a day after it was reported by the media that Chief Justice (ag)  Ian Chang had fixed May 8 for commencement of final  hearings on the case initiated by the government against the Opposition Leader (David Granger) and the Speaker of Parliament (Raphael Trotman), challenging the constitutionality of the opposition’s cuttings of budgetary expenditures.
The Chief Justice’s earlier preliminary ruling had, varyingly, been interpreted by the government and opposition, as well as the Speaker. In his own ruling, Speaker Trotman had considered it necessary to advise the opposition MPs to exercise their powers cautiously and judiciously.
That advice was largely ignored during further rounds of a reckless “cutting spree” of estimates of expenditure by the opposition before final approval was given to the 2013 Budget.A