It  is no surprise that the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Mr. Donald Ramotar has refused assent to the two pieces of legislation, passed in the National Assembly by the combined Parliamentary Opposition diktat of a one-seat margin. After all,  the President had warned that any bill that did not have an input from his government would be vetoed.

But, again placing great faith in its bully pulpit position of so-called majority power, both parties – the A Partnership For National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC)-combined to rush these two  Bills through the legislative process, much to the strong objections from the administration.
Now that the Opposition parties have received such a decisive response,  it should again re-think its parliamentary strategy thus far in this Tenth Parliament. Instead, Mr. Basil Williams, its shadow spokesperson for legal affairs, has now responded with:  “If the government doesn’t sign our Bills, we will use the same tactic against them”. This, really a threat, emanated from  an  APNU press conference.   
Is this the right approach to a situation that ought not to have arisen in the first instance. Certainly not!
And one must again recourse to the type of political configuration that is the reality of the Tenth Parliament; a political  peculiarity that demanded a rising to a higher level of political maturity, which especially the political opposition  had sincerely promised to adopt, for love of country, rather than  partisan ends.
 Had the spirit of cooperation and dialogue, as publicly proclaimed by both APNU and the AFC, been genuinely practiced, the refusal of presidential assent would not have occurred.  
The reality is that the combined parties have by far conducted a political stratagem without recourse to the functioning government that have received a  mandate to govern. How can any parliamentary  opposition, regardless of what degree of parliamentary strength it may have, legislate without consultation with the former? It is not only an act of disrespect, but also one of  great folly, especially now that  the President would have pointed to the series of constitutional errors made in both bills.   
Therefore, Mr. Williams and colleagues  must know that no amount of threats of legislative retaliation is ever going to scare/force a change in the Executive’s position. For it is a constitutional  right which the President has exercised, with the attendant reasons given. Every Head-of State/Government reserves such a  prerogative.
It must also be reminded that history’s harsh judgment awaits it for continuing along this unnecessary, confrontational and anti-national path.
This latest halt to Opposition attempts to usurp the functions of the Executive by way of diktat, ought to remind it  of the necessity to work with the latter in the broader interest of the Guyanese nation and its people.  It is time for it  to end the power play and grandstanding, for  threats will not  succeed. 
This is the way to go.