The Guyanese public would have experienced a classic example yesterday of the difference between a propaganda offensive by Opposition Leader of the People’s National Congress (PNC) and the reaffirmation of a political reality as outlined by Finance Minister, Dr Ashni Singh.The comparison came in separate assessments, as reported in sections of the local media.

For a start, the PNC’s leader Granger, chairman of the coalition of parties under the banner of APNU—in which the once militant WPA is one of the insignificant segments—told a media conference on Friday of his hope for parliament in this New Year to be “free” of the political collisions that characterised meetings in 2013, and reflect, instead, on the need for “cooperation and transparency”.
Mr Granger deserves applause for reflecting such  matured political thinking, the moreso as 2014 seems likely to be faced with perhaps even more daunting economic and other challenges than in 2013.
Pity is that the applause had to be shortlived, as the retired Brigadier of the Guyana Defence Force quickly shifted gear to move into his customary attacking mode.
Knowing, as he does, what it means to abide by the once heinous PNC doctrine of “party paramountcy” that had pushed Guyana down on its knees as one of the internationally rated highest indebted and poorest countries of the world, Granger was now ready to also roll out his litany of perceived political, social and economic woes for which he blamed the PPP-led government.
That’s not all. He made a spirited call on the Executive President of Guyana, Donald Ramotar, to become involved in the establishment of a “new social contract” that would pave the way for national unity, guarantee human safety, and  foster economic development and growth.
Further, he said that if President Ramotar favours removal of “obstacles” to Government/Opposition “cooperation”, then  “he must  come to the negotiating table, sit down with the opposition, and let us decide how the country will move forward…”
At this point, readers may well ask whether Mr Granger, the parliamentary Opposition Leader, is for real, or simply hallucinating about political power?  Has  the  PNC leader forgotten the opposition politics of obstructions in 2013 that had resulted, in some  cases, in costly physical destruction, loss of lives, and grave fiscal and economic setbacks?
Think, for instance, of the human and economic tragedies of the “Linden disaster”; the torpedoing of the Amaila Falls hydro-electric project — Guyana’s biggest ever economic programme — and, of course, the political collusions that were to prevent parliament’s approval of the  “Anti-money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism ‘ Bill.
In both of those cases, the PNC and AFC had shown utter contempt for the pleas from the Private Sector Commission (PSC) for cooperation in the national interest.
As Finance Minister Ashni Singh has pointed out in an interview with the “Guyana Times”, the 10th Parliament in 2013 proved to be a story of lost opportunities, and  misguided politics by the opposition when it came to cooperation with the government.
Irrespective of political allegiance or persuasion, Guyanese could well recall how the PNC/AFC tango in 2013 to frustrate both the hydroelectric project and passage of the ‘anti-money laundering’ Bill had even involved hostility towards the broadly-based Private Sector Commission, including some crude personal attacks on leading officials.
In the circumstances, it would be a leap of faith to believe that Mr Granger is now indeed interested in avoiding “collisions” with the government in parliament and to strive, “for cooperation and transparency…”
As the saying goes, “It takes two to tango”. Our own preference is for the “cooperation” agenda to begin when the parliament gets down to the challenging Work Programme for 2014.
On his own part, President Ramotar could perhaps begin with an invitation for consultations with a delegation of representatives from the PNC and AFC, and follow up with consultations with representatives of the private sector and labour movement. After all, It is better to hope than dwell in despair.