The Appointment of the District Chief Executives by the President is Against the Tenets of Democracy, Decentralization, and Economic Growth

While the Ghanaian constitution or democracy has a semblance of democracy: Free and fair elections, the rule of law, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of all citizens, it is an elitist democracy in practice. It is designed to benefit and protect the interests of the elites rather than serving the needs and interests of all citizens. The political and economic systems are structured in such a way as to favor the elites, who have the resources and power to shape policies and laws to their advantage.

Healthy democracy with effective and efficient institutions has the potential to empower citizens and hold those in power accountable, especially when democratic institutions are functioning well. It can also help to ensure that all citizens' voices are heard, and those in power are held accountable. In a well-functioning democratic system, the government is more likely to respond to its citizens' needs and demands and provide essential services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

However, in Africa or Ghana, the political elites have used democracy to advance their interests at the expense of the general population. The road to a thriving and functioning democracy in Ghana has been challenging and requires continuous efforts to address corruption, promote transparency, and ensure that all citizens have equal access to political power and representation.

The 1992 Constitution was not designed to work for the interests of the country; instead, it was crafted or customized to serve the interests of one man. In a practical sense, the President of Ghana is even more powerful than a monarch, given the uselessness of the parliament and presidential influence over the judiciary. But, nothing in the constitution stifles development initiative and execution more than the section on the local government selection and appointment of the District Chief Executive (DCE).

The constitution, on the one hand, says, "Parliament shall by law provide for the taking of such measures as are necessary to enhance the capacity of local government authorities to plan, initiate, coordinate, manage and execute policies in respect of all matters affecting the people within their areas, to achieve localization of those activities ultimately;" And on the other, the constitution says. "(1) there shall be a District chief Executive for every district whom the President shall appoint with the prior approval of not less than two-thirds majority of members of the Assembly present and voting at the meeting."

The question is: How can the local people have the capacity to plan, initiate, coordinate, manage, and execute policies in respect of all matters affecting them in their areas when their first or fundamental democratic rights to choose their local leaders have been taken away from them? Some people have argued that the district assemblies screen and recommend DCEs before the Presidents appoint them. That means the DCEs are not appointed unless they have been screened and their names forwarded by the district assemblies to the President. So, for this reason, some people maintain that the DCE is directly chosen by the people's representatives, not imposed by the President.

The argument that the local people choose and screen the candidates for the DCE position is far from reality and the truth. The catchword is "appointed by the President." It is common knowledge that the local people will not waste their time selecting and screening a candidate they are not sure the President will approve. How many people have been selected as DCEs from the opposition parties in districts that voted massively for the opposing party? Don't you think the districts that voted against the government in power would have selected their DCEs from the opposing party if they thought the President would appoint anyone they picked? The operative word is "Appoint by The President." The crafters of the constitution were crafty in ensuring that power was taken away from the local people.

Currently, the ruling party in the district nominates about six candidates from the district, and the party elders at the regional and national level vet these people. After vetting, a team from Accra and some locals interviews the candidates. The most qualified candidate's name is forwarded to the President, who presents them to the local assembly for approval by not less than two-thirds of the total members. A third of the assembly members are not elected; the government nominates them from Accra, so where is the overwhelming local input? Do not forget many instances the President nominates the person directly from Accra and presents him to the assembly for approval.

The District Chief Executives' (DCEs) appointment by the President undermines decentralization by centralizing power, lack of accountability, disconnecting from local communities, and decreasing participation in the democratic process. The appointment of DCEs by the President rather than through a democratic election process centralizes power and decision-making authority, taking it away from local communities and removing their ability to choose their leaders. DCEs appointed by the President may not be accountable to the local communities they serve, as those communities did not elect them. This can lead to a lack of responsiveness to local needs and priorities.

From an organizational standpoint, the current setup of the district political structures in Ghana often engenders conflicts between the District Chief Executives (DCEs) and the Presiding Members (PMs). The President appoints the DCEs and can remove them from office. The DCEs, therefore, serve as a link between the central government and the district. They chair the executive committee, the most powerful committee in the assembly.

The Presiding Members (PMs) of the district assemblies are elected from among its members by at least a two-thirds majority. They are the most influential members of the assembly who convene and preside over the daily meetings of the assembly and perform other functions prescribed by law. Assembly decisions are taken by majority vote, and the PMs Cast votes in situations with ties. While the PMs are mainly accountable to the assembly, as members elect them directly, the DCEs appear to have a dual allegiance: serving the interests of the President and the assemblies.

DCEs who are not elected by local communities may not have a deep understanding of the needs and desires of those communities, leading to a disconnect between the policies and programs being implemented and the needs of the people. The appointment of DCEs reduces the opportunities for local communities to participate in the democratic process, as they are not allowed to vote for their leaders.

Economic development and growth have stalled in Ghana because of the over-centralization of political and economic power in Accra, the capital city, and the seat of the government. The 1992 constitution has widened and deepened the over-centralized government to take real government away from the people and place it either in the hands of the President and his executives or top bureaucrats and technocrats in Accra. Democracy, when started in Athens, was city affairs and not state affairs. In other words, Athenian democracy was a local affair. What kind of democracy do we have when the local people do not have the fundamental right to choose their leaders at the local level?

Think about it: one can say by looking at the electoral polling numbers that the people in the Volta Region overwhelmingly rejected Kuffour and Akufo Addo, yet these two presidents had to impose leaders on them by appointing their local leaders. The same is true for the Ashanti Region under Mills and Mahamah’s regimes. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge in planning at the local level will tell you that imposing leaders on the local people does not work.

Local government plays a crucial role in nation-building by implementing policies and programs that support the growth and development of local communities. The success of local economic activities contributes to the nation's overall prosperity, and a well-functioning local government can help ensure that these activities are well-coordinated and effectively managed.

Local governments also provide essential services such as infrastructure development, public safety, and primary healthcare, which are critical for improving the quality of life for residents. They also serve as the primary source of support for local businesses and entrepreneurs, helping to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

Furthermore, local governments are often closer to the people they serve and have a better understanding of their communities' specific needs and challenges. This allows them to tailor their policies and programs to meet the unique needs of each area, leading to more effective and efficient outcomes.

It is essential to note that while democracy has the potential to benefit the poor in many ways, realizing these benefits requires continuous efforts to address corruption, promote transparency, and ensure that all citizens have equal access to political power and representation.

Technology has provided us with the tools to link every part of the country. Nevertheless, no one seems to take advantage of it to enhance local development. Why can't power be devolved from the central government to the local people in deeds and not words? Why can't Metropolitans or municipal cities elect their leaders? Who knows and can assess the leadership qualities of DCEs better than their local people? As some planners and political theorists assert, 'Development of the national income is the aggregation of the local activities.' There is no regional or national economy without local economies, for the national economy is the aggregation of the local economies.

Enhancing decentralization in Ghana requires a multi-faceted approach involving better legal and institutional reforms, capacity building, fiscal decentralization, participatory governance, and (Information and Communication Technology (ICT). These strategies can help to promote accountability, efficiency, and better representation of local interests, which are essential for sustainable development and inclusive growth.