
A presidential debate is not a luxury in a democratic society—it is a responsibility. Just as no employer would hire a candidate without an interview, voters, too, deserve the chance to assess those applying for the most powerful job in the country. Debates offer a rare, unfiltered opportunity for citizens to hear directly from those who seek to lead them, side by side, as they answer the same questions. In that space, speeches give way to scrutiny, and charisma is tested against clarity and substance.
In Guyana, we have never had a presidential debate. That absence is telling. In an election cycle where the stakes are higher than ever—ranging from oil wealth management and infrastructure development to national security and democratic accountability—it is increasingly complex to justify the continued avoidance of this democratic norm.
The ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has already signaled its disinterest in participating in a presidential debate. The message this sends is deeply troubling. It suggests the party sees little value in subjecting its candidate to direct, public questioning. It creates the impression that the leadership fears the optics of being challenged and prefers the safety of rallies, press statements, and controlled media environments over the unpredictability of real-time accountability.
For the electorate, this refusal raises serious concerns. If the government believes in the strength of its record and the clarity of its vision, then why not present it in the most public and democratic forum? Saying no to a debate is, in effect, saying no to transparency, open dialogue, and the democratic principle of informed choice.
Presidential debates are not foreign to the Caribbean. In Jamaica, nationally televised debates have become an established tradition since the 1990s, coordinated by the Jamaica Debates Commission—a partnership between civil society, media, and the private sector. These debates have enabled citizens to evaluate not just policies, but the character, temperament, and readiness of candidates. Trinidad and Tobago, while less consistent, has hosted debates and forums involving political leaders during election seasons. Even in politically polarized nations, debates have served as critical platforms for accountability and comparison.
That Guyana has yet to embrace this tradition speaks volumes about our political culture. It signals a reluctance among candidates to be tested publicly—to risk being challenged or exposed to unscripted critique. But discomfort is no justification. We are no longer a society content with stump speeches and party slogans. Today’s Guyanese voters—more informed, more connected, and more demanding—deserve better.
The opposition, too, should press harder for a debate, not simply for political advantage, but in the public interest. The people of Guyana have everything to gain. A debate offers a unique opportunity to compare not only ideas but also how well those ideas withstand scrutiny. It is a test of leadership under fire—and that is precisely what the presidency demands.
If the PPP/C believes it has earned another term, it should welcome the opportunity to prove itself to the nation. And if the opposition thinks it can lead more effectively, it should want the country to see that, directly, and unfiltered. Anything less is political theatre, not democracy.
Guyana deserves its first presidential debate—not just for this election, but to establish a precedent for future ones. A new generation of voters, many of whom were born in the democratic era following 1992, expect more from politics. A debate won’t solve all our problems, but it would raise the bar for political discourse, transparency, and accountability.
Leadership is not just about governing. It’s about showing up. And there is no better time to show up than when you’re asking the people to renew your contract.