THE society continues to be bombarded by slogans couched in the language of change. For instance, it is being told that we need to change the way things are being done, but what is absent is a concomitant change in the behaviour of those who call on the society to change. One gets the impression that these calls are basic convenience to hoodwink the people, with no intent to help the society to develop and grow.

Having just concluded our local government elections, the society has once again been bombarded by the call for change, inclusive of programmes that are not well-thought-out. The promises made by elected officials, when found not to be feasible, the excuse is that there were promises just for the sake of being elected. Offering to serve and making promises by way of manifestoes, etc., once elected, these are considered a contract with the people.

For one to entertain the opinion that he/she can say anything to the people in order to be elected, and fail to honour commitments given or offer acceptable explanation for the inability to deliver, is an affront to the citizens. Such acts open the committers to be deemed unreliable, dishonest, and outright hustlers. It tells the citizens there exists no regard or respect for them, and that they are mere pawns.

Elected officials must come to terms with the fact that the trust placed in them is based on their commitments to the people. They cannot continue to treat elected office with flippancy. It is this perception, real or perceived, that contributes to the view that politics is a dirty and self-serving game, and also played a factor in the low level of participation in the local government elections.

When the PPP/C was in the Executive, it resisted every effort to make the National Assembly work as an inclusive institution that took on board and arrived at consensus on issues emanating from the Government and Opposition sides. Instead, the nation witnessed the party using its majority to ram bills and motions through the Assembly. For the PPP/C, the only time engagement with the Opposition was considered worthwhile was when a decision required a two-thirds majority.

Gail Teixeira, the Opposition Chief Whip, brings to the nation’s attention her interpretation of the National Assembly rules. While her arguments appear cogent, one needs to ask: why wasn’t similar interpretation applied when her party held the Executive? Clearly, honouring of the rules applies to the PPP/C only when it is in the Opposition. This behaviour exemplifies the double-standards that exist in political circles.

While Teixeira speaks to respecting the rules of the National Assembly, the Prime Minister, Leader of the Government Business in the House, made public that the Assembly would not be sitting for the next two months, purporting reasons that have been rebutted by Teixeira. What is put before this society is that while the APNU+AFC are elected to do better than the PPP/C, they, too, are involved in stymieing the importance of the Assembly.

Members of the APNU+AFC, when in Opposition, drew to the nation’s attention the need for the implementation of recommendations in the 2005 Sir Michael Davies’ Parliamentary Report, among which was an increase in sitting to address issues emanating from the Opposition. It is instructive that the proponents for the implementation of Davies’ recommendations are today accused of non-compliance.

The talks about One Guyana and using social cohesion as a platform for national unity cannot be achieved if there continues to be acts of this nature.

Then there is Bharrat Jagdeo who, as Finance Minister and President, refused to have Government engage with the trade unions in collective bargaining, and imposed paltry wage and salary increases. Now in Opposition, he is calling for Government to engage unions and pay workers 50 percent.

Citizens ought to be concerned with these disturbing practices, so entrenched in the society and steep in the political class. The change that we purport to have has to be guarded by the people; for while politicians seek to advise and exhort in regard to rules and laws, they are collectively involved in breaking them, based on the issues and depending on which side of the political aisle they sit.

The future of this country is vested in the hands of the young people. As such, it requires the young sitting up; paying attention to what politicians on both sides of the aisle are saying and doing; and getting involved by joining and taking leadership of the political parties, to influence their direction and the views of those steeped in the culture of deceit, double-standards and tit for tat. No longer must the young stand on the sidelines and allow the continuation of practices that will divide them, their friends, families, and neighbours.