APNU has displayed how little it understands its constitutional role

In what should have been a feeling of great relief by the nation, knowing that with the final passage of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, that their country would not be blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), President Ramotar’s address to the nation, announced an extension of the perfidy that has come to symbolise opposition politics since the convening of the Tenth Parliament.OBSERVER must confess to being utterly puzzled, and so must all Guyanese, at this latest display of the A Partnership for National Unity(APNU) deliberateness at spiteful politics, that reveals just how little they have understood their constitutional role, much less the magnanimity as displayed by the President.
How on earth the Opposition leader Granger can claim that the President offered nothing when they met? Magnanimously, the President offered to have the Bill legislated with APNU’S proposed amendments, even though it was felt that these were non-compliant. There was also a proposal that should both CFATF and FATF found the amendments to be compliant, that the Opposition would support amendments, in accordance with such findings.
It was quite clear that as President, Donald Ramotar took the responsible line,   of seeking to have the legislation completed, even though there was the likelihood of the Bill being found to be non-compliant, as alluded above. Therefore, Granger’s claim of the government not offering anything is without foundation.
What has surfaced, not surprisingly, is that of an opposition that does not understand what “bridging the political divide” is all about, particularly in the crucial circumstances where the nation stands to suffer. Has APNUt given thought to the grave consequences of its fossilised stance? And if it thinks that once Guyana becomes blacklisted, that its very constituents, for example, would not be affected, then it ought not to be recognised as  Peoples’ Representatives.
OBSERVER has been pondering this aspect of the political opposition, as to the mental make-up of opposition Members of Parliament – where is their sense of nationalism? Does it exist? And if it does, why is it not coming forth at this most serious hour that is fast approaching for the nation?
Patriotic leaders are known for the unselfish decisions taken in the very best interests of the nation that they serve. At that most important hour, they think only about the well-being of their country and people. Thus Granger’s deceiving, urgent talk about wanting to see the Bill legislated, is as hollow as the party he leads, symbol of the Palm Tree!
For those who have been shouting to the high heavens about compromise – let it be said that it had been offered by the government, but totally rejected by Granger. Surely, a leader of such chronic shortsightedness, should not lay claim, nor aspire, to national leadership. For leading a country, is totally different to leading an army.