Now, I want to make this clarification that the Constitutional Review Committee didn't consider extending the existing two-term limit or suggest adding a third term, as some party communicators are busy making propaganda about it.
Let us ask ourselves whether countries where presidents have stayed in power for over 20 years are better off. Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking it is the number of years that makes the difference. It is rather our attitude and mindset that are failing us as a country.
Also, even if the committee recommended changing the four-year term to five years, this proposal would still require a referendum to be accepted or rejected by the people. Let's therefore all hold our horses till we get there. I'm sure most Ghanaians will vote massively No for any five-year term of presidential office.
Looking at our party democracy from 1993 to date, no president has performed so exceptionally that one could argue that more years in office would have changed everything. The persistent issues in Ghana’s political history remain corruption, looting of state resources, misappropriation of public funds, and abuse of office, problems no party has seriously addressed since the country’s return to democratic governance in 1992. Allowing a party to remain in government for five years per term, stretching to ten years if re-elected, could be politically suicidal, especially if the president is incompetent or lacks the political will to discipline appointees who become intoxicated by power and act arbitrarily and inconsiderately toward ordinary poor citizens.
Furthermore, economic hardship and political victimisation may push some people to entertain dangerous thoughts, including plotting a coup against a government perceived as failing to deliver. History has shown that prolonged suffering and exclusion can threaten democratic stability. Let's not plunge our country into political darkness for the sake of others' parochial interests.
If a government truly intends to perform well, it will implement sound policies and ensure they are effectively executed without political motivation. Unfortunately, most policies in Ghana are driven by electoral calculations rather than national interest. They are designed to win votes, not to solve long-term problems, and this is why our development efforts continue to go round in circles.
If a four-year mandate cannot produce meaningful results, it is difficult to see how merely adding one extra year would suddenly work miracles. Most of the time, what we lack is political will, not time. Hard decisions are avoided, accountability is compromised, and corruption is tolerated because of partisan considerations. Therefore, adding more years means more time to loot and engage in corrupt scandals.
We should rather focus on building stronger institutions to combat corruption and the numerous scandals that continue to plague the country. Our institutions must be genuinely independent, free from political manipulation and interference, if they are to carry out their mandates effectively. Without this, nothing meaningful can be achieved. We could give a president 20 years in office, but without strong institutions capable of resisting wrongdoing, development will remain elusive.
In conclusion, Ghana should maintain the four-year presidential mandate, subject to renewal for a second term. More importantly, we must eschew blind political affiliation and confront national issues from a patriotic standpoint. Crimes should not be defended because the accused belongs to one’s party. Alleged offenders need no defenders outside the courtroom. If found guilty, they must face the full rigours of the law.
Only through accountability, strong institutions, and a commitment to national interest can Ghana move forward. Anything else is a dangerous illusion.
The Trial News
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!