A Coup Is a Coup: Why Mahama’s Ghana Cannot Afford Double Standards on Democracy

Ghana cannot afford double standards on coups. At a time when many young Ghanaians are increasingly open to the idea of military intervention in politics, the Mahama administration’s mixed signals on unconstitutional takeovers in West Africa risk undermining both Ghana’s moral authority and its own democratic stability.

A coup is a coup

When soldiers seize power in any country, they overturn the will of the people and tear up the constitutional order that holds a state together. That is why Ghana, under President John Dramani Mahama, rushed to condemn the recent coup in Guinea-Bissau, branding it a blatant attack on democracy and calling for an immediate return to constitutional rule in line with ECOWAS principles.

In Parliament and in the media, Samuel Abu Jinapor has welcomed Ghana’s firm stand on Guinea-Bissau but insists that if a coup is bad in Bissau, it must also be bad in Benin, in Burkina Faso, in Niger and anywhere else in our region. His argument is simple: Ghana cannot choose which coups to denounce loudly and which ones to treat with quiet accommodation; a coup is a coup, whether it happens next door or far away.

Double standards in Mahama’s foreign policy

Abu Jinapor has repeatedly raised concerns that the Mahama government is practicing a kind of double standard in its foreign policy, especially on questions of military rule and democratic breakdown in West Africa. On one hand, the government has agreed to send Ghanaian troops to Benin under an ECOWAS arrangement to help protect constitutional rule after an attempted coup there, projecting an image of a state ready to defend democracy beyond its borders.

On the other hand, Accra has maintained a far more accommodating posture towards Burkina Faso’s military authorities, even as they have come to power through an unconstitutional takeover and resisted quick transitions back to civilian rule. Abu Jinapor’s warning is that such selective toughness—strong words for some coup-makers, soft gloves for others—weakens Ghana’s credibility and sends a confusing message to citizens and neighbours alike about what this country really stands for.

Guinea-Bissau: strong words, uncertain follow-through

The government’s response to the Guinea-Bissau coup shows Ghana at its best and at its most vulnerable. The Foreign Affairs Ministry issued a strong statement rejecting the military takeover, demanding the immediate restoration of constitutional order, and encouraging ECOWAS and the African Union to apply pressure on the putschists.

Yet the power of that statement depends on whether Ghana applies the same principles everywhere else. When citizens see Accra speak boldly in Bissau but tread carefully with juntas in the Sahel, they begin to wonder whether democracy is being defended as a matter of principle or abandoned when interests shift.

Youth more coup-prone than before

The stakes are high because Ghana’s own democratic culture is facing a quiet but serious test among its youth. Recent Afrobarometer-based reports show a worrying rise in Ghanaians who say they can accept military intervention if elected leaders abuse their power, with support among younger citizens noticeably higher than in previous years.

For many young Ghanaians, politics now looks like a space where corruption goes unpunished, promises are broken, and leaders do not always put the national interest first. In that environment, any sense that Mahama’s administration is comfortable dealing gently with some coup regimes while condemning others can seem like an admission that democracy itself is flexible and negotiable.

Ghana must choose coherence over convenience

A strong democracy like Ghana has no business flirting with inconsistency on unconstitutional rule. The country’s proud history—from peaceful transitions of power to its reputation as an anchor of stability in ECOWAS—was built on a clear belief that political change must come through the ballot box, not the barrel of a gun.

Abu Jinapor’s call for full parliamentary oversight of foreign policy and security deployments is therefore not a partisan gimmick, but a demand for coherence. If MPs must approve the use of Ghanaian troops and scrutinise the government’s relations with coup regimes, then Ghana’s external posture is more likely to reflect the same democratic values that citizens expect at home.

Ghana has already shown, in its condemnation of the Guinea-Bissau coup and its support for constitutional rule in Benin, that it knows the right path. The real test now is whether the Mahama government will apply the same standard in Burkina Faso, Niger and anywhere else in West Africa where the gun tries to overrule the ballot; because in this season of rising coup sympathy among the youth, Ghana cannot afford to preach democracy on Monday and practise expediency on Tuesday.

Kwame ASANTE