The Invisible Hand in Ghana’s Politics

How did we end up with our current political system of government? Ask any level-headed Ghanaian and they would correctly reference the 1992 Constitution. But proceed further and ask them how this constitution came about, and they may give you one of several answers: (i) from the people, I guess; (ii) I don’t know, I have not really read about that. I am not into politics; (iii) from previous governments; (iv) from Rawlings (or some might even say Nkrumah); and so on, and so forth.

While containing elements of truth, none of these answers would be entirely accurate. Our current constitution derives from the 1979, which in turn derives from the 1969, and that from the 1960. But I will spare you the history lesson on the tumultuous post-independence era, and focus my discussion more narrowly on the period between 1969 and 1992.

The Tandem of Constitutions and Governments

What is astonishing about Ghana’s political journey is how often we kept vacillating between different forms of government, each time enacting new constitutions to correct the ills of former regimes. For instance, the 1969 Constitution, seeking to offset the degenerated one-party rule of the Nkrumah regime, swung the country sharply towards a British-class parliamentary democracy. Power was deliberately diffused between a Prime Minister and a ceremonial President to ensure collaboration over command.

But this experiment in parliamentary rule – which critics had earlier branded as weak and ineffective – was overthrown in a military coup three years later, giving way to the adoption of a third Constitution. This Constitution of 1979, as expected, effectively abandoned the parliamentary model and reinstated a powerful American-class executive president alongside an independent Parliament, in the hope of finding a more durable balance between executive authority and democratic accountability.

But Ft. Lt. Jerry J. Rawlings would have no more of this dizzying constitutional cycle of trial-and-error. Thus, upon seizing power on the last day of the last month of 1981, he entrenched himself firmly in power and introduced a powerful political philosophy that would long cast a shadow over the nation’s politics for the next three decades.

The PNDC and Multiparty Democracy

The Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC), which ruled Ghana from 1981 to 1992, was not just another military government; it was a movement with a distinct ideology. Under the leadership of its chairman, our eminent, though sadly late, former president Flt. Lt. Jerry John Rawlings, the PNDC was deeply skeptical of the “old politics” of partisan competition, which it viewed as corrupt, divisive, and elite-centered. Its own governance class was thus top-down, populist, and centered on the authority of its Chairman.

When the time came to return the nation to constitutional rule, the PNDC did not simply hand over the keys. It carefully managed the transition, ensuring its philosophy and security were embedded into the new democratic framework. The process, involving a Committee of Experts and a Consultative Assembly, was guided to produce a constitution that, while permitting multi-party democracy, retained the PNDC’s preference for a strong, centralized state. This was hardly surprising, given that the PNDC Chairman intended to be in the running to become the first civilian president of the new Fourth Republic, the constitution of which he was at the time helping to create.

We therefore see many features therein which aided this cause. For instance, the constitution created a powerful presidency which effectively made the President the Head of State, Head of Government, and Commander-in-Chief. This executive authority was then solidified by granting the President sweeping powers of appointment, which included the heads of nearly every key institution in the nation – MMDCEs, the Inspector-General of Police, the Governor of the Bank of Ghana, the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, the Chief Justice, to name a few. Then there is the power of eminent domain, which vests ultimate authority over public property in the hands of the President.

To ensure this powerful executive faced minimal opposition, the legislature was also strategically designed. A unicameral Parliament was opted for because it was relatively more domitable for a power-seeking executive branch than a bicameral system, which offered stronger checks on presidential powers. Furthermore, the constitutional requirement that the President appointed the majority of his ministers from within Parliament effectively fused the executive and legislative branches, thus weakening separation of powers and the legislature’s crucial oversight role.

The Miracle of Ghana’s Science of Politics

That Ghana has remained a flourishing democracy in Sub-Saharan Africa for over three decades is a mystery many political scientists have struggled to get their heads around. Our “science of politics” simply defies every standard rule in the democracy theory book. Indeed, a hyper-presidential system, a winner-takes-all electoral dynamic, a unicameral legislature, and a highly centralized state maintained altogether should not translate into a stable democratic polity, let alone a consolidated one, like Ghana’s. This is why no other democracy in the world is so thus configured, and why Ghana’s story is so unique and, perhaps, even scary – to say the least.

Would you disagree? Let me indulge you for a minute. Take a heterogenous nation like the United States, for example. It is a two-party presidential system all right (like Ghana’s), but it also has the checks of federalism and a second legislative chamber. Or take the United Kingdom, our forebearers. It has a first-past-the-post (or a ‘winner-takes-all’, if you prefer that expression) electoral system, but it also has a parliamentary government and a bicameral legislature. France also has a powerful president, but it divides executive power with a prime minister who is accountable to parliament. Even unitary states with a single parliament, like Sweden and New Zealand, use proportional representation to force power-sharing through coalition governments. This clear pattern begs the question: is there something we Ghanaians know that the rest of the world’s democracies, with their complex safeguards, do not? Or is it that we do indeed have such safeguard, only that it is not as tangible and institutionalized as those often depicted and preached about in the democracy playbooks?

The Invisible Hand in Ghana’s Politics

Many scholars of Ghanaian politics have pointed to the existence of a so-called ‘mystery hand’ that holds the nation’s political system together, despite its incongruous configuration.

Some find it in the elite network traditions of the NPP and NDC, which foster private cooperation and moderation between the two parties, despite their (often staged) public antagonism.

Others find it in our religious precepts and values, which, invoking God’s transcendency and providence in personal circumstances, tend to make people more patient in afflictions, and less prone to resorting to acts of violence as expressions of discontent.

Still, others find expressions of it in our chiefs, our cultural festivals, our rites of passage, our taboos and totems, our proverbs and folklores, our symbols and signs, all of which strengthen our bonds of heritage as a people, and unite us towards the preservation of our ancestral land.

And finally, others point to historical-economic factors that have conditioned a tendency among Ghanaians to seek individual solutions (‘exit’) rather than pursue collective action (‘voice’) when faced with systemic problems – for instance, moving abroad, buying a generator, or starting a side hustle, rather than engaging in a protest march or a civic movement.

While these observations are not without merit, one thing is certain: we cannot continue to rely on a fortunate combination of circumstances to make our democracy work. To do so would be a dangerous gamble. The time has come to begin the hard work of fixing the loopholes and cracks in our political system – and by extension, our constitution, rather than simply hope that the ‘steady’ props to our nation’s politics would not wear or give way. This may be the surest path to our democratic preservation for years to come.

Dr. Darlington K. Wiredu
Research Fellow, Innolead International
Tel. No.: +233541017962
Email: darlington.wiredu@innoleadint.com

   Comments0