There are moments when a country needs more than another regulation, another commission, or another press conference. It needs a doctrine.
Jamaica may now need one called the Doctrine of Delanification.
Let me be clear from the outset. “Delanifying Bartlettities” is not a legal accusation against Edmund Bartlett, Delano Seiveright, or anybody else. It is a deliberately Jamaican piece of legal-political vocabulary for a serious constitutional question: When does the influence of powerful political personalities cease to be merely political influence and become embedded in the architecture of government itself? And, having become embedded, how does a constitutional democracy remove the personal imprint without destroying the legitimate institution?
That question is no academic amusement.
Jamaica is currently deepening its engagement with Saudi Arabia over tourism, investment, financing, and development. Tourism Minister Edmund Bartlett has reported discussions with Saudi Eksab concerning possible financing, technical assistance, and co-investment for Jamaican small and micro-tourism enterprises. A Saudi delegation is expected in Jamaica next February for further discussions while separate engagement with the Saudi Fund for Development has explored possible cooperation in tourism, infrastructure, reconstruction, and human capital development. No investment package has yet been announced.
Precisely because these discussions are still developing, now, not afterwards, is the time for Jamaica to establish the rules. The country must not wait until foreign capital, domestic political relationships, and public assets have become entangled before asking who decided what, under which law, according to what criteria, and for whose benefit.
That is where Delanification enters.
By “Bartlettities”, I mean institutional practices, arrangements, policies, appointments, relationships, and discretionary habits that become so strongly associated with a particular ministerial personality or political network that they risk being mistaken for permanent features of the Jamaican State. By “Delanification”, I mean something much more respectable than political purging. It means returning public administration to the law.
The governing principle should be simple: no politician should become an institution; no adviser should become an institution; no ministry should become a personality cult; and no political relationship should acquire the force of law merely because it has existed for long enough.
Jamaica’s Constitution does not establish government as the private property of whichever political personalities happen to occupy ministerial office. Public power is entrusted power. It must, therefore, remain subject to legality, accountability, reasonableness, transparency, and the public interest. That principle becomes particularly important where the State controls scarce or strategically valuable national assets.
Consider Jamaica’s beaches. The beach question is not merely about sand, sea, and sun. It is about property, public access, environmental stewardship, economic opportunity, tourism development, and ultimately, sovereignty.
If foreign investors – Saudi, American, Chinese, European, Canadian, or otherwise – are invited to participate in Jamaica’s tourism future, the question cannot properly be whether the investor is rich enough, influential enough, or sufficiently favoured. The question must be: What does Jamaican law permit? What does the public own? What can legally be leased, licensed, concessioned, or developed? What must remain accessible? What environmental obligations apply? What procurement and investment rules govern the transaction? What parliamentary, regulatory, or planning approvals are required? Who benefits economically? And, critically, can the Jamaican public examine the decision-making record?
That is Delanification. It is not anti-investment. It is investment under law.
Indeed, it could become one of Jamaica’s greatest selling points to serious investors. A mature investor does not need a sweetheart arrangement. A serious investor needs certainty. Certainty means knowing that the same rules that govern today’s transaction will govern tomorrow’s transaction. It means knowing that a ministerial handshake does not outrank legislation; that political proximity does not substitute for due process; and that a change of administration does not suddenly transform a lawful investment into a political football.
Jamaica’s own current tourism policy rhetoric makes the point. The Government has been promoting “Local First”, with the stated objective of increasing local sourcing, strengthening Jamaican suppliers, and ensuring that more tourism earnings remain within Jamaica. Excellent. Then let the principle apply universally.
If Jamaica welcomes Saudi capital, let the law protect the Saudi investor. If Jamaica protects Jamaican entrepreneurs, let the law protect them too. If a beach is public, let public law determine the circumstances under which access may be restricted. If land is privately owned, let private-property law govern it. If the State wishes to alienate, lease, or otherwise encumber public assets, let the statutory authority and public-interest rationale be demonstrable. And if a proposed transaction is exceptional, let the exception itself be subject to exceptional scrutiny.
That is the essence of the doctrine.
Delanification should require every major public-private arrangement to survive five tests. First, legality: What is the precise legal authority? Second, transparency: Can citizens see the relevant agreements, criteria, and decision-making record, subject to legitimate confidentiality? Third, institutional independence: Was the decision made by the proper institution rather than by personal influence? Fourth, public benefit: What measurable Jamaican benefit is expected? Fifth, reversibility and accountability: What happens if the arrangement fails, changes materially, or ceases to serve the public interest?
These are not revolutionary demands. They are the ordinary expectations of constitutional government. What is revolutionary is the suggestion that Jamaica should apply them before, not after, the deal.
And this is why the current Saudi engagement matters. The issue is not whether Saudi Arabia should invest in Jamaica. That is a legitimate matter for negotiation. The issue is whether Jamaica enters those negotiations as a sovereign constitutional state or as a collection of personalities negotiating through institutions. The distinction is enormous.
Saudi Arabia has immense financial capacity and is actively expanding its international investment and tourism footprint. Jamaica, meanwhile, is seeking greater Middle Eastern investment, air connectivity, and tourism partnerships. Current discussions are, therefore, potentially consequential. Consequential negotiations require consequential rules.
Before another beach is fenced. Before another concession is granted. Before another public asset is placed into a private development arrangement. Before another foreign investor is invited to participate in Jamaica’s patrimony. Before the next ministerial announcement becomes tomorrow’s irreversible fact, Jamaica needs Delanification.
Not because Bartlett is Bartlett. Not because Seiveright is Seiveright. Not because Saudi Arabia is Saudi Arabia. But because Jamaica is Jamaica.
The State must outlive its ministers. The law must outlive its advisers. Institutions must outlive political friendships. And Jamaica’s beaches must outlive every administration.
That is the doctrine: Delanify the personality. Preserve the institution. Strengthen the law. Protect the public.
If Jamaica can accomplish that, foreign investment need not threaten sovereignty. It can operate under sovereignty. And that is precisely where a mature republic ought to begin.
Dennis A Minott, PhD, is the CEO of A-QuEST-FAIR. Send feedback to: a_quest57@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
