Mickel Jackson | When the public is shut out

Participatory governance is not a polite invitation the state issues when convenient. It is the non-negotiable foundation of legitimate power in any democracy that claims to serve its people. It means citizens and civil society are not passive recipients of decisions already made, but active shapers of policy from the earliest stages. Yet far too often, major decisions that will define security, the civic space, and fundamental rights are advanced with insufficient openness, limited formative input, and selective use of the mechanisms designed to include the public.

While there is no automatic legal rule that forces government to consult every person affected by its decisions, a duty to consult does arise in certain situations. For example, when a law requires it, when fairness demands it, or when the government has previously promised or created a reasonable expectation that people would be consulted.

Just calling something a “consultation” does not make it one. Once the government decides to consult the public on a proposed decision, basic standards must be met. The consultation must take place while the plans are still open to real change. People must be given enough clear information to understand what is being proposed. They must be given enough time to respond thoughtfully. And decision-makers must consider the feedback with an open mind. Anything less turns consultation into an empty exercise.

Jamaica already possesses the tools. The Public Sector Consultation Code of Practice of 2005 sets out minimum standards: clear options, accessible materials, sufficient response time, stakeholder analysis, feedback, and evaluation. It was meant to shift government from top-down control towards a genuine “community of participation”. Too often it remains an unused document on a shelf.

The Third Country Nationals (TCN) Memorandum of Understanding with the United States, signed in June 2026, is a stark illustration of scant regard for participatory governance. An arrangement that touches national security, sovereignty, and implications for Jamaica’s obligations under domestic and international law was concluded without the full text of the MOU ever being tabled in Parliament. No opportunity was given for citizens to weigh the risks against any claimed benefits.

OFFERED DETAILS

Minister of National Security Dr Horace Chang has publicly stated that the MOU is not a secret document and has offered some details in press briefings – notably, only after the story was leaked by a media house. Yet weeks have passed and still there has been neither the tabling of the full text in Parliament nor even the basic courtesy of a formal update on when Jamaicans might expect to see it.

Contrast this with Antigua and Barbuda, where a white paper on a comparable arrangement was tabled, allowing citizens and their representatives a clear view of what was proposed and a chance to respond. If Jamaica’s MOU is not secret, then the continued failure to place it before the people’s representatives requires explanation. The decision not to table the MOU, not only places executive convenience above the public’s right to know but sends a clear signal that on matters of high consequence, participation is optional.

UNDERSTANDING THE TOOLS

Joint select committees (JSCs) remain among the strongest tools available for participatory governance. They bring members of both Houses together, invite public submissions, and permit detailed examination. Not every bill or agreement requires a JSC. Other mechanisms under the Consultation Code – stakeholder working groups, town halls, written submissions – must also be used rigorously. Yet even when a JSC is established and citizens take the time to submit detailed views, meaningful consideration is often not done. In some cases, such as the ongoing reviews of the Integrity Commission Act and the Protected Disclosure Act, there has been little public update on the committees’ progress or how submissions have been treated. This is unacceptable.

Parliament itself can do more to close identified gaps. The current abhorrent state of the Houses of Parliament website significantly limits public access to information about bills, committee work, and opportunities for engagement. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency if Parliament is serious about supporting participatory governance. Through the Jamaica Information Service and the Public Broadcasting Corporation, greater public education is also needed on the roles and functions of standing, joint, and sessional committees so that citizens understand how and when they can engage. Committees must meet consistently, and deliberate efforts should be made to encourage wider participation through clearer notices and accessible formats. Without these steps, the formal architecture of consultation remains distant from the people it is meant to serve.

SUFFICIENT

Some argue that Jamaica operates as a representative democracy in which citizens elect leaders to govern on their behalf, and that this electoral mandate is sufficient. That argument is misguided. Electing representatives does not extinguish the public’s right, or the state’s obligation, to consult. Democracy rests on more than free and fair elections every few years. Its real strength is measured by how well citizens are enabled to participate in the ongoing work of governance.

Vertical accountability runs from elected officials back to the voters who put them in office. Diagonal accountability operates through the continuous scrutiny and engagement of civil society, the media, and independent institutions between elections. Both are essential. When decision-makers treat consultation as optional, they weaken both forms of accountability and reduce democracy to a periodic vote rather than a living practice.

Why does this matter? Decisions shaped without meaningful public input are weaker, less legitimate, and harder to implement. In a country facing climate shocks, economic pressure, crime, and deep social inequities, excluding the voices of those who live the consequences is both undemocratic and self-defeating.

The choice is straightforward. Continue treating consultation as optional and watch public trust erode. Or treat participatory governance as the essential pillar it is and build decisions that Jamaicans can recognise as their own. The legitimacy of our democracy and the effectiveness of our policies depend on which path we choose.

Mickel Jackson is the executive director of Jamaicans for Justice. Send feedback to communications@jamaicansforjustice.org.