Government continues to alienate the Opposition as national interest suffers. The Irfaan Ali regime missed a glorious opportunity to demonstrate to Guyanese and the world that the nation is united in defence of Essequibo.
Prior to last Friday’s parliamentary engagement on the Venezuela/Guyana border issue, let’s not forget that a similar motion, passed in November 2023, saw engagement between the Government and Opposition. Both sides played a role in a process that saw the conceptualisation and development of that motion which was laid in the National Assembly and passed with unanimous support.
The Government must recognise and accept that it cannot operate in abstract to what is taking place in society. There continues to be stark divisions between Government and Opposition supporters on the distribution of resources and respect for fundamental rights.
The Opposition was elected by half the society to represent its interest. The Ali regime needs not forget that according to GECOM’s declaration it has only a one seat parliamentary majority. A smart Government will take note.
In light of the continuation of claims of discrimination by the other half of society, a gulf has been created between the two sides. One would therefore have expected President Ali to take note and act in a manner befitting his greater responsibility as Head of State and Head of Government, to weld the different forces together on this issue.
The President should have taken the leadership in engaging Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton to deepen the process by appointing a joint team, not only to write the motion but to plan the parliamentary activities that occurred last Friday to ensure these were reflective of a national approach.
Following the approach of collaboration on the May 2025 motion, as was done for the November 2023, the two sides should have organised and deepened events on the eve of Guyana’s independence that would have sent a strong message to Venezuela. For instance, they could have collaborated on adorning the National Assembly and its environs with national themes and emblems. They should have entered parliament as a united force, bearing flags and placards, ‘not a blade of grass-’ singing national songs. Then they could have taken their respective seats, understanding clearly that they are united on every element of the motion that would be tabled on the day in question.
Such a demonstration would have sent a strong message that internal differences were put aside in the national interest. Instead, they entered the National Assembly disunited and came out even more disunited.
The government can take no credit for passing the motion without the opposition. They created the environment of disunity by marginalising the Opposition, then now seeking to capitalise on it. To what end? To serve their own political purpose because it does not serve the national interest. Instead, it demonstrated deepening dictatorial tendencies.
The onus is on the Government to demonstrate that national interest supersedes petty politics and partisan political gain. It is the job of the government to forge national unity.
Too often in criticism persons look at the effect and not the factors (cause) giving rise to effect. The opposition never voted against the motion tabled. What the opposition did is expressed its dissatisfaction with the process adopted in undermining the process established dealing with this issue.
The government has once against cast aside the principal political objective of the society to forge an inclusionary democracy.
Guyanese must demand the Government treat the Opposition with respect. After all, it is a one-seat difference, not forgetting, resulting from questionable results.
Friday was an unnecessary, unacceptable and untimely parliamentary show of political brinkmanship, on the eve of independence, that smacks at the people’s aspiration to forge a Guyana that honours its motto: “One People One Nation One Destiny.”
