The Perils of Prolonging Power: Why Ghana Must Uphold Its Four-Year Presidential Tenure

Ghana’s political landscape, often celebrated as a beacon of stability in West Africa, is now embroiled in a contentious debate: should the presidency’s four-year term be extended to allow for longer mandates? Proponents argue that extended terms would foster continuity and enable presidents to implement ambitious reforms without the constant shadow of re-election.

However, I contend that maintaining the status quo is essential for safeguarding democratic accountability, preventing power concentration, and ensuring the health of Ghana’s nascent democracy. Drawing on historical precedents, comparative analyses, and theoretical insights from international relations, this article presents a robust case against term extension, emphasising that the four-year cycle is a cornerstone of Ghana’s democratic success.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Ghana’s Presidency

Ghana’s journey towards democratic governance has been fraught with challenges, yet it has consistently prioritised checks on executive power. The country’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, served from 1957 to 1966 under a system that allowed indefinite re-election, culminating in his overthrow amid accusations of authoritarianism. This period highlighted the dangers of unchecked power, as Nkrumah’s regime suppressed opposition and curtailed freedoms, leading to economic stagnation and political instability. The 1966 coup ushered in a series of military interventions, underscoring the fragility of institutions without term limits. The Fourth Republic, established in 1992, introduced a four-year presidential term with a two-term limit, enshrined in the 1992 Constitution. This framework was a deliberate response to past abuses, inspired by global best practices and local lessons. Presidents like Jerry Rawlings (1993-2001) and John Kufuor (2001-2009) adhered to these limits, facilitating peaceful transitions.

The 2016 election, where John Mahama conceded defeat to Nana Akufo-Addo, further demonstrated the system’s efficacy in promoting legitimacy. Yet, whispers of term extension have resurfaced, particularly under Akufo-Addo, whose administration has overseen economic growth but also faced criticism for corruption and inequality. This debate is not new; similar discussions arose in 2004 and 2010, but were rebuffed. Now, with Ghana’s GDP per capita rising and infrastructure projects underway, some argue that longer terms would allow leaders to “finish the job.” However, history cautions against such temptations

The Case for Accountability: Preventing Power Concentration

At the heart of my argument is the principle of accountability, a fundamental tenet of democratic theory. Term limits act as a safeguard against the accumulation of power, ensuring that leaders remain responsive to citizens. In Ghana, the four-year cycle compels presidents to deliver tangible results swiftly, fostering a culture of performance-driven governance. Extending terms risks creating a “presidential monarchy,” where incumbents entrench themselves, as seen in neighbouring countries.

Consider the theoretical underpinnings: scholars like Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, in their seminal work on democratic consolidation, argue that fixed terms prevent the “perpetuation of elites” and encourage political pluralism. In Ghana, this has manifested in vibrant multiparty competition, with the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and New Patriotic Party (NPP) alternating power.

A longer tenure could stifle this dynamism, allowing presidents to manipulate institutions for personal gain. For instance, patronage networks might expand, as leaders reward loyalists with appointments, weakening meritocracy. The 2019 Auditor-General’s report revealed significant irregularities in public procurement, partly attributed to executive influence—imagine the scale under extended terms.

Moreover, accountability extends to electoral integrity. Four-year terms align with citizens’ attention spans, ensuring regular scrutiny. Voters can hold leaders accountable for economic policies, such as the Free Senior High School programme, without waiting decades. Extending terms might lead to voter fatigue, reducing turnout and enabling gerrymandering or media control. In an era of social media, where misinformation spreads rapidly, shorter terms amplify public oversight, as evidenced by the 2020 election’s high participation despite COVID-19 challenges.

Disclaimer: The content provided on Fish FM Online is for informational and entertainment purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness, reliability, or timeliness of the information presented. Fish FM Online and its affiliates are not responsible for any errors or omissions, nor for any decisions made based on the content available on our platform.

Tags: Presidential Tenure