SURE as day follows night, the Parliamentary Opposition, comprising both the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), continue a pattern of politics that has become very easy to predict: The politics where only they, particularly the APNU, can dictate and dominate. This is nowhere near the assurances given, in the aftermath of the 2011 polls, in light of their unique position of a combined extra seat, of seeking to work with the Executive to confront whatever challenges there may be.
Every conceivable parliamentary office, the Opposition has sought to be dominant, rather than employing the promise of consensus for resolution. The Speakership has been a seminal example of the Opposition’s strategy of diktat. Rather than stick to the traditional formula of sharing both the offices of Speaker and its Deputy between the two sides of the House, THEY GRABBED BOTH CHAIRS, which is unprecedented in Commonwealth Parliamentary practice.
Now again, there is the proposed Parliamentary Select Committee on Security Oversight, the purpose of which is to deal with all matters of security within Guyana. And, guess what? The APNU segment of the Political Opposition is objecting to this Committee, for the simple fact that they will not be able to hijack its chairmanship!
How sad and disappointing for a Party! APNU, whose leader, Mr. David Granger, has been most relentless and withering in his attacks on what he alleges to be Government’s inability to manage the security situation in Guyana. Bearing the brunt of these salvoes has been the indefatigable Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee, against whom that now infamous no-confidence vote had been made, and a consequent gag order.
In fact, so entrenched has been the APNU’S known position on hostility, that it has even refused its cooperation on the implementation of the all-important Security Sector reforms that is now on its way towards overhauling the entire national security structure; not forgetting also the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
OBSERVER posits that given what has always been an Opposition position of hostility on matters of national security, being on this committee would afford a practical opportunity for its contribution towards this pivotal piece of legislation of the State. But, here again, we are confronted by what is another display of narrow, selfish opposition objectives.