With just over two weeks before Jamaicans head to the polls on September 3, the Jamaica Debates Commission (JDC) — long regarded as a neutral referee in national elections — now faces its gravest credibility test.

Allegations of the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) blacklisting journalists from Nationwide News Network (NNN), accusations of confidentiality breaches, a media clarification involving the Jamaica Observer, and a sharp war of words with the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) have all converged into a firestorm.

At its core is not just a fight over moderators but a deeper struggle over press freedom, political influence, and whether democratic institutions can withstand the mounting pressure of a fiercely contested election.

The JDC’s Mandate and History

Founded in 2002 after the disorderly 1993 debates, the JDC was designed to create order where chaos once reigned. Its mission: to stage structured, issues-focused debates that empower voters with clarity. Over the years, it has hosted national and local debates (2012, 2016, 2024) and exported its expertise abroad, helping commissions in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.

As executive producer, the JDC selects moderators and panellists, curates questions, and enforces rules. Its flexibility has allowed innovations, such as reduced panellists during COVID-19 and public-sourced questions. But now, amid blacklisting allegations and partisan warfare, its reputation for impartiality is under siege.

Blacklisting Allegations: A Test of Press Freedom

The PNP reportedly objected to NNN journalists, arguing that they display a persistent bias towards the JLP. It threatened a boycott if its concerns were ignored.

Reports are that, initially, the JLP signalled openness to all journalists. But after the PNP’s objections, the JLP is said to have countered with its own.

This tit-for-tat escalation has transformed journalist selection from an independent process into a political bargaining chip.

The Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ), alarmed by this precedent, condemned both parties’ interventions as a direct threat to press independence. “This process must remain impartial and free from partisan interference,” its August 18 statement declared.

The PNP, in turn, rejected claims of blacklisting, accusing the JLP of misrepresenting its position and violating JDC confidentiality by publicising objections.

Confidentiality Breach: JDC and PNP Rebuke Parties

The situation worsened after an Observer article revealed details of closed-door JDC negotiations. Chairman Brian Schmidt chastised both parties, saying “…it was specifically requested and agreed by both parties that the negotiations be held in confidence, the JDC is extremely disappointed at this breach”.

The PNP accused the JLP of orchestrating the leak, pointing to communications Chair Abka Fitz-Henley, who it claimed broke JDC rules. The JLP denied wrongdoing, but the damage was done: confidence in the process further eroded.

The Observer has since clarified that the JLP issued no statement about the private deliberations of the JDC.

The JDC’s Independence

The JDC has long prided itself on independence, but leaks, partisan pressure, and accusations of bias threaten to unravel two decades of credibility. The PAJ insists that debates must serve the electorate, not political elites, while the PNP vows continued cooperation with the JDC but accuses the JLP of undermining the process. The JLP, meanwhile, portrays the PNP as the aggressor, guilty of blacklisting.

Either way, the commission risks being perceived as a political pawn unless it takes bold corrective action.

Jamaica’s Press Freedom Ranking: The Backdrop

Jamaica’s drop to 26th in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index (down two from 2024, down 16 since 2020) amplifies these concerns. The PNP cites the decline as proof of media interference, but its objections to journalists undermine its moral standing. The JLP, too, damages its case by retaliating with its own vetoes.

At the heart of the dispute lies the question: Are Jamaica’s journalists truly impartial?

The PNP points to what it sees as NNN’s aggressive tone towards its leaders, which it argues border on hostility rather than accountability.

While each side cherry-picks examples to support its case, the broader issue is whether perception — not proof — of bias should determine who participates. If politicians dictate who is “fair”, the independence of the fourth estate collapses.

The Way Forward

To salvage credibility, the JDC must act decisively.

1) Publish transparent criteria: Establish a clear, public framework for selecting moderators and panellists based on professionalism and independence.

2) Ensure diversity and balance: Draw journalists from varied outlets — print, television, radio, digital — to dilute perceptions of bias.

3) Reassert independence: Explicitly reject party vetoes. Debates serve the people, not politicians.

4) Rebuild trust through engagement: Host public briefings explaining processes, avoiding secrecy that breeds speculation.

5) Strengthen media accountability: The PAJ should lead media-monitoring initiatives.

6) Institutionalise safeguards: Enact a JDC-PAJ charter to bind future elections to principles of fairness and independence.

The blacklisting allegations, confidentiality breach, Observer clarification, and partisan crossfire have thrust the JDC into its gravest test yet. Unless swiftly addressed, Jamaica risks entering its 2025 election without the credible debates that have long been a hallmark of its democracy.

This election is no longer just a contest of policies, it is a referendum on whether Jamaicans still believe in a free press, impartial institutions, and transparent democracy. How the JDC navigates the coming days will decide not just the credibility of the debates but the strength of Jamaica’s democratic fabric itself.

janielmcewan17@gmail.com

Janiel McEwan