Lengthening the presidential term is a proposal for power grab

E. Ablorh-Odjidja

Mr. Alban Bagbin, the Minister of Health, has called for the extension of term of office of the presidency because “the four year term has not made any meaningful impact on national development.” He said.

He explained further that “whenever there was a change of government successive governments had to study the policies and programs initiated under their predecessors before they could be on course.”

Of course, the minister is wrong and here is why:

It is not the time spent in office or the period needed to study programs of previous administration that hurts our national development.  It is the art of policy reversal that we have perfected since 1966.

Meaningful development is when sound policies and plans of a nation are sincerely implemented and given the chance to mature in order to assure continuity; regardless of who created the plan, or which administration happens to be in charge, or the length of any presidential term.

The minister's view brings up the need to refigure our understanding of the presidency and its approach to developmental planning. 

Presidential term in office, whether four or 7 years, may offer us different occupants in office but what it must not do is to change the responsibility of that office. The responsibility of the incumbent should not be to obliterate willy-nilly the works and ideas of his predecessor.  Unfortunately, the reverse is what many of our administrations have done.

To bring out the futility of the minister's proposal, I offer the following list of countries in Africa that have more than the two four year term we have in Ghana:

Republic of Congo – Two seven year terms.

Ethiopia, Liberia – Two six year terms.

Benin, Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Siera Leone, South Africa  – Two five year terms.

With the exception of South Africa, a country which has a spectacular different founding, what is so inspiring about development in these other countries that should warrant the scrapping of our current system?

Rather than worrying about the length of the presidential term in office, let’s worry about the illiterate electorate in our midst and how to educate them about issues concerning the political process and the commonweal.

Let us also worry about the manner by which successive governments have reversed preceding development plans dating from Nkrumah to Kufuor.

We must know why the State House complex (Job 600) sat unused for a long time, why the Akosombo electrification plan, with its range of complementary dams, was not completed in its full range after 1966 and why the Presidential Palace of Kufuor, finished since 2008, has not been used for its purpose.  

These projects are landmarks and worthy ideas that stand as symbols of the administrations that wrought them. Their usefulness is and has been apparent.  But we made them obscure; not because we lacked the knowhow to realize promptly their merits.  We ignored or discontinued their full use and promotion at the first sign of political change because of sheer vindictiveness. 

Let us not pretend that we are not aware of the vindictive nature of our politics.  It is destructive because it abhors continuity and encourages policy reversals of previous administrations. This phenomenon is the ill we must cure. The imposition of a long presidential term cannot cure the disease.

The proposal itself is dangerous because it is the ultimate slippery slope to dictatorship.  It creates false hope in the near term.  Five years may be proposed now, then later six and who knows where it may end since the optimum number is not known?  In the long term, it only takes one incompetent and power hungry ruler to bring about the unpalatable prophecy of dictatorship.

Even if dictatorship is not created overnight, the proposal will bring about an immediate upset in the balance of power, due to the increase in presidential term, at the expense of the people. 

The current incumbency of four years is not a term limit, unless the people so desire at the ballot. But this is the essence of democracy.  And even if a corrupt executive were to rig the elections to get the nod, he will still be limited to a second short term. This structure is crucial to the health of our liberty.

In the end, incumbency is all that matters. It is the beauty of the current short term.  Under the notion of four years, a president has enough time to sell whatever development plan he has. If he fails to do this within the four years there should be no reason to think that he can do it in five or six or more years.

Nkrumah was in office for a total of six years as president.  But he was able to achieve a lot.  He was overthrown years ago.  All that is needed is the political will to continue the better plans of previous presidents, even after they have gone from office.

A short, reasonable term in office will not preclude good leadership or limit executive power or imagination.  It only assures sensible rotation of power.  The electorate will always have the chance to endorse or reject an incumbent after every four years.

We have seen presidents embark on projects that do not necessarily advance the national project; development plans that target particular constituencies so as to ensure victory at the polls and to further the chance for more power for self or party.  This is the tendency that must be curtailed, if we are to assure sound development. And it can be done through civic education.