The announcement last Friday by President Bharrat Jagdeo of the appointment of a commission of inquiry headed by Justice of Appeal Ian Chang SC has knocked the wind out of the sails of the donor community's attempt to revive the engagement between the President and Opposition leader Robert Corbin.
The commission is to inquire into allegations of Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj's involvement in the activities of a death squad which is alleged to have been responsible for the unexplained deaths of more than forty persons whose bodies have been found in various parts of the city.
The opposition for the past four months has been calling for an independent and transparent inquiry with adequate protection for those with information about the activities of this squad. It was not an unreasonable request given that the allegations claim the involvement of senior police officers and government officials.
Mr Jagdeo's announcement on Friday moves away from the government's previous insistence on an investigation by the police but seems to fly in the face of advice from the international community contained in a statement by the United Nations' Representative Jan Sorensen that the process of constituting the commission should be common property. Mr Sorensen's statement advised too that mechanisms such as a presidential commission should be utilised.
What is more, it goes against the stated desire of President Jagdeo and the PPP/C for dialogue and its commitment to inclusivity and forecloses any opportunity for a resumption of the engagement with Mr Corbin, even if not in the same manner as before Mr Corbin brought it to an end.
The country needs a way out of the impasse which the President and his advisers seem incapable of providing either by design or their inability to find a way of breaking the impasse without losing face before their constituency.
However, the government's interest in resolving the impasse could be demonstrated by its willingness to implement in a timely manner the decisions remaining from the constructive engagement process. It must almost move in a similar manner to complete those not yet fully implemented.
Determining when decisions are implemented is and was not a prerogative of the President as he and his party are wont to think. They were obligations freely entered into when he sat with Mr Corbin and hammered out the agreement.
Being obligated to implement decisions is no indication that you are no longer in control of the government. In fact it is precisely because it is in control of the bureaucracy that Mr Jagdeo and his government have a responsibility to implement the decisions taken.
There is no less a burden on Mr Corbin and the opposition to implement those undertakings they have the power to implement such as commenting on the policy paper on land and house lot distribution that Housing Minister Shaik Baksh laid in the National Assembly several months ago.
Both Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon and Information Liaison Robert Persaud are on record as saying that some of the constitutional reforms have taken on a life of their own and cannot be turned back. However true that is, the government has to be more diligent in ensuring that the resources are provided to ensure their implementation in a manner that enables the reforms to achieve the objectives of the Constitution Reform Commission that recommended the changes based on submissions made to it by members of the public.
For example, if the sub-committee on economic affairs is to make an informed comment on government policy in that area then it has to be provided with the expert assistance required to make sense of all the technical information that the ministries and various agencies have provided. It should not be niggardly in the resources it provides for this purpose.
Another example is the relationship between the Office of the President and the National Assembly. The National Assembly is as independent as the executive and the Judiciary according to the constitution. And the reforms to which the government agreed and which the parliament voted to unanimously approve were intended to reinforce that independence. Neither the government nor the opposition has the right in any way to water- down the intended effect of the reforms. It should not dictate, for instance, that offers of assistance in training parliamentarians and the Parliament Office staff should be channelled through the Office of the President. The National Assembly must be the sole arbiter of what training it needs to more efficiently and effectively monitor the policies and performance of the government.
The opposition also has a duty to ensure that they function as intended despite the government's machinations. But that duty has to be discharged diligently and creatively and by mobilising civil society to act accordingly outside the parliament to hold the government to book. And if protest it must, then it is obligated to do so both inside and outside the parliament and there are creative ways of doing so without incurring the wrath of the Speaker to induce the government to be responsive to the concerns it expresses.
The uncertainty of the political situation has cast a pall over the nation since September or even longer. That uncertainty benefits no one in the long run - not the government, the opposition and certainly not we, the people.
Our lives have been put on hold as our economic well-being has become more parlous by the day. More distressingly, we are no longer safe in our homes or on the streets.
We the people deserve infinitely more than this from our politicians but they will not deliver unless we bring it to their attention and demand that they do better.
If politicians govern in our name then we must see benefits from what they purport to do in our name and in our interest. If they want to be given the privilege of guiding our destiny then they must demonstrate the diligence, creativity and responsiveness and all the qualities required to improve our well-being given all the problems that face us. But most of all they have to demonstrate that they have the capacity to unite all of us - we the people of this land - in the urgent task of nation building. We, the people, in turn must be prepared to deal with issues and judge government and opposition based on which has the policies which, after an objective assessment, seem to offer the best possibility of developing the country. That is the only way that we can expectantly look forward to the brighter tomorrow that we the people, all 749,000-odd of us, deserve.