On January 7, 2009 a great political feat was consummated in Africa. It was a political rarity in Africa. The political feat was so remarkable that it earned copious world acclamations. Ghana, the beloved land of my ancestors, made me proud. Ghana conducted very successful but contentious elections and afterwards peacefully transferred political power to a new government. The election is universally acclaimed to be peaceful, transparent, free and fair. The epic election ended with opposition leader John Atta Mills being declared the winner by the narrowest of margins—barely 40,000 votes out of 9 million, or less than 0.5 percent of votes. Although, the successful transfer of power is an extraordinary political accomplishment, the constitutional process revealed very disturbing premonitions. The 2008 Elections reaffirmed the existence of serious political tensions in Ghana, an alarming political situation I was morally compelled to reveal to my fellow Ghanaians in my article published on January 6, 2006 (http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=97142) after in-depth objective political analysis of Ghana and Africa. The analysis clearly indicates that recurrent tensions in Ghana is highly indicative of a political situation that requires a permanent solution in order to avoid the fate of instability and insecurity characteristic of many modern African states.
Indisputably, Ghana excellently passed a major political test. It is the test of stability and democracy. It succeeded a second time, since returning to democracy in 1992, to transfer central government power to an opposition party without any disruption of the constitutional process. After surviving a post-colonial period of instability and military rule, Ghana has earned more than a modicum of stability and democracy. This success is remarkable since it has been achieved after contentious elections in which the opposing party candidate was able to beat the candidate of the ruling party. That the ultra competitive 2008 Elections were peaceful and transparent is all the more remarkable because the stakes were so high and the margin of victory so thin and it was at a time when revenue from reserves of 1.8 billion barrels of oil is expected to flow in 2010. Ghana must be proud that the hard-fought election ended without widespread violence. It is gratifying that it secured Ghana's place as a beacon of democracy in Africa.
However, this success is not indicative of consolidation of unity and democracy that can stand the test of time. The 2008 Elections indicate that Ghana has not passed the test of unity. The elections reaffirmed existence of endemic political tensions, which has made national unity virtually unattainable. But, unity is essential to attaining endurable stability and democracy. Clearly, the elections exposed weaknesses in Ghana’s democracy—disunity and tensions that threatens stability. Since 1992, Ghana like Cote D’Ivoire before 2002 and Kenya before 2007, have displayed to the world seemingly durable political stability but underneath the quite political landscape are tensions that have the potential to erupt to a national political crisis because of fierce competition for monopoly of power by some socio-political groups.
The question often asked is this: Why is that after more than fifty years of independence Ghana is still plagued by political tensions. An objective analysis of politics in Ghana reveals that the undercurrent of political tensions that often threaten the success of elections are indicative of the existence of defective political structures, deficient political system, and divisive political ideologies. The analysis also reveals that the permanent solution to Ghana’s political tensions and to Africa’s political tensions and crises is …The United Africa, a restructured Africa governed by a system of consensus democracy inherent in our traditional African political organizations and guided by a new African-centric ideology—Neo-Africanism. Indubitably, Ghana and Africa needs a permanent solution to tensions and crises. The solution is … The United Africa.
Elections in Ghana
Elections in Ghana have always exposed tensions. Certainly, the 2008 Elections was not an exception. Unquestionably, the unforgettable experience of the elections were frightening tensions and exemplary leadership. Although the elections was very successful and provided absolute political legitimacy to the new government, it revealed political premonitions that should advised my fellow Ghanaians to rethink the political status quo and embrace new ideas that will permanently avert tensions and crises.
Political Premonition
The 2008 Election in Ghana, more than prior elections, exposes disturbing political tensions and forewarns frightening future crises. It tells us that if there is no fundamental political change and the political status quo remains, crises may be unavoidable. It reveals the potential of a period of chaos, violence, and devastation characteristics of Cote D’Ivoire, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Potential future political crises became all the more apparent during the election. This election exposed ulterior political motives of some socio-political groups and revealed entrenched political positions. During the elections, disunity and tensions beneath the political surface quickly rose above the surface thereby bringing Ghana to the brink of chaos. The acrimonious political relations during the elections forewarn us that unless a permanent remedy is found that address the fundamental cause of tensions, crises may one day erupt to shatter the peace and stability of Ghana.
Elections in Ghana have been contentious. The July 1956 Elections was keenly contested and it precipitated secession agitations. It caused pre-independent political turmoil and ushered in divisive politics that has continued to influence political discourse since then. Elections in the 2nd and 3rd Republics continued to reflect divisive politics although tensions were relatively less. During the period of military rule when there were no elections tensions persisted. Since the return to democracy in 1992, elections have continued to expose the precarious political situation of Ghana. The 2008 Elections, although praised by the international community, affirmed the existence of tensions in Ghana. It alerts us of an alarming political future—the high potential of future political crises. This is a disturbing probability that must be removed.
Despite the success of the elections, this probability exists because the sources of tensions and potential crisis still exist. During the elections, tensions run high amid spurious allegations of irregularities. There were accusations of vote rigging in Ashanti and Volta Regions, the political strongholds of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) and opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), respectively. Ghana has ten political regions but the counter accusations by NPP against Volta Region in response to NDC accusation against Ashanti Region aggravated the historical political hostilities between the two regions. The accusations fostered increasing acrimony as both rival camps sensed that power was within reach. Tension escalated when NPP announced a boycott and launched legal proceedings to postpone the run-off and freeze the announcement of results. Tensions run so high that Ghana came very close to the brink of abyss. To the amazement of the world, exemplary political and professional leadership emerged to rescue Ghana from falling into the abyss. Indisputably, Ghana stepped back from the brink of chaos.
The 2008 Elections in Ghana, widely acclaimed to be a testament of democratic maturity rare in Africa, exposed the subterranean political tensions and reaffirmed the existence of a dicey political situation. The elections affirmed that despite the five consecutive successful elections and despite the two consecutive transfer of power between opposing political parties, perennial political tensions remains a scary feature of the Ghana political landscape. The disturbing feature of political tensions that periodically brings Ghana to the brink of political explosion as was in Cote D’Ivoire and Kenya requires the people of Ghana to seek a permanent solution to this threat in order to avoid the dreadful fate of other African states in perpetual crises.
Without a good understanding of the political dynamics of Ghana, the political temperature of the 2008 Elections will be easily misconstrued as symptomatic of healthy competition. On the contrary, it was indicative of alarming political problem. It was reflective of the virulent subterranean tensions in Ghana. The success of the elections may be misconstrued as proof of the existence of deep-rooted democracy. Without a doubt, the success of the elections was not due to deep-rooted democracy but to exemplary leadership from the Electoral Commissioner, the Fast Track Judge, and the outgoing President. They saved Ghana.
Exemplary Leadership is not Enough
Since leadership is not always present to thwart impending political disaster in the life of a nation, Ghana cannot rely solely on the emergence of the right leadership at the right time all the time. Leadership is rare and it does not always emerge to save a nation as it did in Ghana during the 2008 Elections. To ensure that the nation is always peaceful politically, the national political model—the political structure, system, and ideology must be such that it is infeasible for tensions and crises to erupt at any time. Appropriate political formation is the major attributes of successful nations although leadership is very important. Leadership, not Ghana’s political model, should be credited for the success of the elections.
The biggest credit for the success of the 2008 Elections is bestowed to Ghana’s Electoral Commissioner, Dr. Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, who exhibited exemplary professional neutrality and judgment. Under his leadership, the electoral commission discharged its duties professionally and creditably to the admiration of Ghanaians and international and local election observers. Africa’s recent electoral history does not reflect such neutrality to the point of gaining absolute confidence of the populace. Dr. Gyan’s leadership contributed immensely to strengthening democracy in Ghana. However, Ghana cannot expect to have him always or someone like him to always emerge to thwart impending disaster. Ghana must create appropriate political model that prevents tensions and crises in order to guarantee stability and democracy all the time.
Another exemplary professional leadership worthy of high praise was exhibited by Justice Amoako Asante of Ghana’s Fast Track Court. Undoubtedly, his professional neutrality and judgment saved Ghana’s budding democracy. The judge threw out the ruling party’s ex-parte motion citing the law. His exemplary leadership averted a constitutional crisis that would have derailed Ghana’s democracy. This leadership attribute in the judicial branch of government is rare in Africa. The judge epitomizes independence of the judiciary. His leadership brought success and praise to Ghana. However, Ghana cannot expect to have him or someone like him to emerge all the time to safeguard the constitution. To garner the capability to establish the conditions that permanently prevent constitutional crisis, Ghana must create appropriate political model that is not prone to tensions and crises.
A commendable political leadership, rare in Africa, also emerged to save Ghana’s democracy. The incumbent President John Kufuor greatly augmented his democratic credentials when he advised all party’s to accept the final results of the elections to be declared by the Electoral Commissioner although at that point his party was losing the presidential election. His decision to intervene and persuade his own party to accept defeat staved off potential anarchy. He demonstrated that he was democratic enough to accept an election that is free and fair and conforms to the tenet of constitutional process. His markedly dignified and statesman-like neutrality was greatly instrumental in the success of 2008 Elections. However, Ghana should not expect political leadership to emerge all the time to safeguard democracy if the underlying causes of these tensions are not permanently eliminated.
Ghana should not expect that there will be leadership all the time to prevent a fundamentally flawed political model from causing crises. Political or professional miscalculation or misjudgment or lack of leadership courage would have exacerbated the dicey slippery situation leading to crisis and chaos. Professional misjudgment by the commissioner or by the judge or political misjudgment by the president would have precipitated crises similar to recent elections in Kenya in December 2007, which triggered ethnic violence in which more than 1,000 people died; and in Zimbabwe where election controversy triggered a catastrophic national collapse. To prevent similar fate in Ghana, the political condition that foment tensions and brings Ghana to the brink of political chaos at election time must be eliminated permanently. Ghana urgently needs an appropriate political model that is not prone to tensions and crises even if nature has endowed Ghana with infinite number of Ghanaians with impeccable abundant courageous leadership attributes.
When the political model creates conditions such that tensions are prevalent and crises are likely, leadership cannot be expected to emerge at the right time all the time to save the nation. Certainly, due to defects in the political construction of the modern African state such as Ghana, tensions are prevalent and crises are always highly likely. Certainly, Ghana was at the brink of explosion during the 2008 Elections. In pulling back from the brink, Ghana gave important leadership lessons to Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and Kenya, where elections deteriorated into a “do-or-die” contest. However, we cannot teach leadership alone to our fellow Africans and hope that our democracy will continue to endure the test of time. We must restructure Ghana and Africa. We must create appropriate political model so that we will never ever again encounter imminent chaos in the exercise of constitutional process. We avoided crisis. But the scary imminence of crises we avoided advises us to rethink the political status quo and create appropriate structures, systems, and ideology in order to ensure that we never again approach a state of violence. That means we must find out what brought us to the brinks to enable us find the right solutions. What brought us to the brink are the defective political structures, deficient political system, and divisive political ideology. These have created dicey political dynamics that foment tensions in Ghana.
Politics & Tensions in Ghana
The political model of Ghana consists of a centralized political structure that permits marginalization of some socio-political groups, a system of governance that condones personal, ethnic, or regional monopoly of power, and a blend of foreign and ethnocentric ideologies that foster ethnic supremacy. With such a political model prejudicial to many socio-political groups, it should not be surprising that tensions are prevalent and crises are likely.
Defective Political Structure
Analysis of Ghana’s political history indicates that political problems are primarily due to the existence of defective political formation bequeathed by colonialism coupled with the unwillingness of post-colonial governments to rectify the situation through fundamental change to the political structure and system of governance. The forcible amalgamations of various socio-political groups by colonialism to form Ghana and the inordinate centralization of political power, which post colonial governments are unwilling to change, have made these groups suspicious of each other. The inordinate centralization of power in a nation of diverse socio-political groups has created great mutual distrust because the political structure permits hegemony of a few socio-political groups and marginalization of many others. The result of this political centralization is the great propensity of socio-political groups, who are out of power, to react quickly against the central government of the day. These are tactics against political domination. These are compelled by fear of marginalization. Excessive political centralization of power has created flammable political condition that has made Ghana a potentially unstable political entity.
Ghana’s political formation is distrusted by some ethnic groups. Under such a distrusted political formation, fear of domination and marginalization is bound to predominate and under a feared national environment characterized by fierce protection of ethnic interest in total disregard of national interest, ethnic polarization is bound to occur and ethnic sentiment is bound to dominate political discourse and national unity is bound to become extremely difficult to achieve. Unquestionably, the political structure of Ghana foments endless and needless ethnic political scrambling, scheming, plotting, and maneuvering. The inappropriate political arrangement confers inordinate political power in the central government and as such it is a threat to ethnic groups out of power.
Objective analysis of history indicates that Ghana’s political formation is a major contributor to ethnic tensions and therefore the disunity among some socio-political groups. Due to the defects of the political formation, elections in Ghana have not been effective in eliminating ethnic tensions. Political discourse today clearly indicates that elections do not address serious political and economic issues and do not bring about peace. On the contrary, it always brings to the surface the subterranean tensions.
Deficient Political System
The political system is deficient in preventing dictatorship, a source of tensions and crises. It permits monopolization of power by a person, an ethnic group or a regional group. Such a political condition, susceptible to political monopolization, foments tensions. It enables a socio-political group or a few coalitions of socio-political groups to monopolize government through a political party. The political system of Ghana is a majoritarian democracy imported from foreign countries. This foreign system does not permit meaningful sharing of political power. This system is antithetical to traditional African system of consensus democracy, a time tested governance system that permit sharing of political power and economic wealth among socio-political groups that constitutes the traditional African state. Africa’s system of consensus democracy has been abandoned in favor of foreign majoritarian democracy and the consequences are tensions and crises.
Majoritarian democracy enables political monopolization to endure to the chagrin of socio-political groups out of power. The majoritarian system often excludes minority socio-political groups from meaningful political participation while enabling majority socio-political groups to control the government. Such a political system will certainly perpetuate political tensions. Tensions are prevalent in Ghana because the system permits political monopolization. Under such a political system, political rivalry fuelled primarily by socio-political interest is bound to predominate.
Ghana’s political system does not encourage consensus democracy. It encourages antagonistic democracy because of the winner-takes-all feature inherent to the system. Because of majoritarian democracy, political camps—the so-called political traditions of Ghana are camps consisting of coalitions of specific socio-political groups bent on using the system to either monopolize power or avoid perpetual political domination by other socio-political groups. Because of the winner-takes-all system, it is not surprising that Ghana’s political traditions are antagonistic rivals seeking to protect themselves in light of the inappropriate system that permits political monopolization. Ghana’s political traditions are not camps of patriots with differing views continuously debating the best way to solve the problems of the nation. They are not camps of citizens continuously seeking a better Ghana. They are camps of protection of social groups suspicious of the political motive of each other. As a result the primary goal of each is acquiring maximum protection against socio-political groups in the other camp. This political condition foments continuous tensions and it is likely to trigger crisis especially during election time.
The NDC of Rawlings traditions and the NPP of Busia-Danquah tradition are virtual political antagonists. Rightly or wrongly, the NDC is believed to be dominated by Ewes and the NPP dominated by Asantes. Because the political system is deficient in preventing monopolization of power by one or a few socio-political groups, the political hostility between the two major parties is as relentless and vicious as it was between the Nkrumaist and the Danquah-Busia traditions in the early political life of Ghana. This mutual antagonism becomes all too evident during elections. Although there are ideological differences between NPP and NDC, the fuel of political antagonism is gross suspicion. Because the system permits ethnic hegemony, there is a penchant desire of ethnic groups to protect identity, sovereignty, and economic interest at all cost. This desire fuels tensions that can quickly degenerate into crises. Ghana’s political system, my fellow Ghanaians, is a source of instability and insecurity. Ethnic groups are not secured in this type of system.
The deficient political system compels Ghanaians to vote for protection against political domination. It does not allow Ghanaians to vote for better economic solutions to problems. Fear of ethnic domination is the rational behind block voting during elections. During the period leading to the 2000 Elections many Akans became increasingly concerned of perpetuation of Ewe political dominance. The NDC is considered an Ewe party because the party is still perceived by many as firmly controlled by former President John J. Rawlings, the founder of the party, who is an Ewe. The fear of perpetuating Ewe domination compelled some socio-political groups to change political alliance. The political alliance of socio-political groups within the Akan ethnic group enabled NPP to win control of the central government in 2004. The political shift from NDC to NPP, especially by Fante-Akans who were then fearful of Ewe dominance, enabled the NPP government of Kufuor to gain additional support to win the 2004 Elections. NDC lost the elections because of the fear of Ewe dominance thus attesting to a political fact. Because of the existence of inappropriate political system, Ghanaians vote for protection against ethnic hegemony not necessarily for better solutions to problems.
In the 2008 Elections, Fante-Akans abandoned NPP for NDC thus enabling NDC to overcome the strength of the coalition of Asante-Akan and Akyem-Akan, the two socio-political groups believed to be firmly in control of NPP. The political shift is a reaction to the adverse effect of majoritarian democracy on some ethnic groups. It is also a reaction against ethnic hegemony in Ghana, believed to be present during NPP administration between 2000 and 2008. The perpetuation of political dominance through the winner-takes-all system under Asante-Akan and Akyem-Akan dominated NPP compelled the politically neutral Fante-Akans to vote for the NDC in 2008. During Kufuor’s two-term administration, majority of his appointees were largely from the two socio-political groups—Asante and Akyem. Public resentment of this domination is not in dispute. Majoritarian democracy virtually excluded other socio-political groups during NPP administration thereby inciting ethnic animosities and political tensions as election approaches.
Because of the system of majoritarian democracy, block voting is a vivid feature of elections in Ghana. The Ashanti Region, the most populated Akan area of Ghana, has never voted for any political tradition other than the Busia-Danquah tradition and in the 2008 Elections this tendency was affirmed. Similarly, non-Akan areas of Ghana—Volta, Upper East, Upper West, Northern Regions suspicious of Asante political dominance due to population size, vote overwhelmingly against Busia-Danquah tradition. The political dynamics of Ghana, which is greatly influence by centralized political structure and majoritarian political system, is thus balanced precariously on the head of ultra neutral Fante-Akans of the Central Region of Ghana.
Majoritarian democracy has unleashed political antagonisms. As a result, political discourse is influenced not so much by ideological differences of the best route to national political and economic destiny but by suspicions borne out of fear of the other socio-political group. The mutual hostilities bring the undercurrent ethnic tensions to the surface during elections to demonstrate that there are high political tensions in Ghana. The political tensions are the results of the complex political dynamics created by Ghana’s political formation—inappropriate political structure and system.
Divisive Political Ideology
The centralized political structure and dictatorial political system have encouraged ethnocentricism, a political ideology that focuses exclusively on the protection of political and economic interest of a particular ethnic group. This ideology is divisive. Although there is little difference between the centre-right NPP and centre-left NDC, political divisiveness is so high in Ghana. It shouldn’t be. But, it is. This is not surprising because socio-political groups of Ghana and Africa believe that given the type of political formation, the pursuit of ethnic supremacy is the only means to acquire maximum protection of ethnic identity, political sovereignty, and economic interest. This pervasive ethnocentric ideology is the primary source of political divisiveness, not differences in political ideology—the belief in a dogma of the appropriate role of government.
Because of entrenched ethnocentricism in the politics of Ghana, it believed rightly or wrongly that the NPP will never elect a non-Akan as the presidential candidate of the party. Historical evidence supports this belief. Majoritarian system of democracy that encourages majority socio-political groups to use block voting on the national level to acquire national power is similarly employed on the party level to monopolize party leadership. Consequently, it enables the majority Asante socio-political group to dominate the party. The seemingly democratic system of electing party leaders ensures only an Akan is elected as the party candidate.
The NPP of the Busia-Danquah tradition is believed to be avowedly ethnocentric. The center-right political ideological is believed to be a mere smokescreen. The party is effectively controlled by Twi-speaking Akans, principally Asante and Akyem. Although there are non-Twi speakers in the party, it is generally believed that they are tolerated just to show a semblance of national inclusiveness. Top positions and real centers of power in the party have always been occupied by Asante and Akyem, who always battle it out for the leadership. Due to strict adherence to majoritarian system, none of the non-Twi speakers of the party have a chance to become party leader. Ashanti and Akyem dominance of the party is indicative of ethnocentricism—subtle propagation of ethnic supremacy aided by majoritarian democracy.
The majoritarian system is unsuitable to the socio-political diversity of Ghana because it does not ensure equity in many areas of politics, whether on the party level or national level. The system confers undue political power or influence on the majority socio-political group thus encouraging ethnocentricism. The population of Ashanti Region is by far the largest in the country. The delegates to party conferences are encouraged to vote for one of their own to ensure victory for him especially in a crowded field. Add this large number of delegate votes to Akan votes of Eastern and Brong Ahafo regions and the other candidates who have the backing of their socio-political groups stand no chance to win party leadership. The system can be politically equitable enabling all people to have equal chance of winning party leadership if the party were not heavily Twi-speaking Akan. Since the system confers power and influence to the majority socio-political group it has encouraged them to be ethnocentric. Due to adherence to this ideology compelled by the political model, Busia-Danquah tradition has not been encouraged to make the party attractive to people from other socio-political groups. Ethnocentricism explains the block voting on the party level as well as on the national level. Ethnocentricism explains the reason Twi-speaking Akans held all the most important posts in the government of Busia-Danquah tradition, both national and ambassadorial. It is an undeniable fact that the NPP is ethnocentric and as such it is very difficult for the party to elect someone who is not Asante or Akyem.
Ethnocentricism also explains block voting in non-Akan areas of Ghana. It is evident that socio-political groups of these areas have coalesced under the Rawlings tradition because of their suspicion of the political motive of Busia-Danquah tradition. Since non-Akans have voted overwhelmingly against Busia-Danquah traditions since 1992, far above the politically rational 60% / 40% split, it is obvious that ethnocentricism underlie their political proclivities. They are predisposed to vote against NPP because of ethnic reasons. Since NDC of Rawlings tradition is composed of diverse socio-political groups and none of them have disproportionate population size, no one group or few groups can exploit the majoritarian system to achieve parochial interest. However, since NDC is believed to be controlled by non-Akan founder of the party and the party is predominantly non-Akan who always vote overwhelmingly against Akan-dominated NPP, it is evident that most of the constituting socio-political groups of the party subscribe to ethnocentricism as well. Ghana is deeply divided because of pervasive ethnocentric political inclinations of socio-political groups supporting the two major political parties. Ethnocentric ideology, a major attribute of politics in Ghana, is a major source of tensions in Ghana. It is a threat to Ghana’s stability because of a high potential of a rapid deterioration into political chaos.
Ethnocentricism festers because of the centralized political structure and the majoritarian system of governance. It is the centralized political structure and the majoritarian system that foster ethnocentricism in Ghana not the diabolical political machination of any socio-political group. It is not the ulterior political motive of any socio-political group in Ghana to monopolize political power infinitum. Socio-political groups compete intensely and antagonistically because the political formation compels them clearly out of the natural desire to protect ethnic identity, sovereignty, and economic interest. The African socio-political group, including those in Ghana, is not inherently antagonistic to other groups because social groups in Africa have co-existed peacefully for centuries. They become politically hostile to each other only when the political conditions of the geopolitical vicinity threaten their being—their identity, their sovereignty, their interest. Whenever this threat becomes feasible they are compelled to resort to ethnocentricism for protection. When ethnocentricism become pervasive, as it is in Ghana and Africa, political ideology is prevented from uniting people of different social groups who share similar political ideology. Certainly, there are people in the Busia-Danquah tradition and in the Rawlings tradition who share similar ideology but the inappropriate political formation that encourages ethnocentricism do not permit them to unite. For the sake of unity, stability, security, and democracy, the people of Ghana must see the threat to Ghana and change the political status quo.
Ghana – A Political Analysis
Objective analysis of politics in Ghana reveals scary political dynamics that has created a dicey political situation. It has created an environment of perpetual tensions, potentially destabilizing. Politics in Ghana is influence by historical experience, political model, and ethnicity. Bitter colonial experiences, flawed political formation, and exploitation of ethnicity have turned Ghana’s political arena into a hotbed of rivalry of some socio-political groups who see other political contestants as enemies in an endless war. Such antagonistic political environment, not surprisingly, sustains tensions that can lead to crises.
Ethnicity: A Major Political Dynamic
Ethnicity is not inherently crises-prone. However, it is easily exploitable. The passions of ethnicity have been utilized fully, selfishly, unfairly by ambitious people seeking power and wealth. It has been abused by some politicians. Due to the existence of passions and abuses of ethnicity, it has become a major factor of the political dynamics of Ghana. Ethnicity greatly influences political events, actions, and behavior. Different ethnic experiences of colonial discriminatory policies and the realities of the existence of political formation that permits ethnic hegemony, and the fervent desire to protect ethnicity have created a dicey political environment prone to tensions.
Ethnicity is powerful because post-colonial political formation has not addressed developmental disparities to neutralize the power of ethnicity. It has actually aggravated disparities across ethnic lines. As a result it has cultivated mistrust among ethnic groups. It is evident that because of ethnic mistrust and suspicions of ethnic hegemony in Ghana, the country is polarized along ethnic affiliations not along political affiliations. This is evident from the history of block voting.
Analytic history tells us that colonialism planted the seeds of political problems but post-colonial disregard of the adverse legacies of colonialism on certain ethnic groups exacerbated the problems thus making ethnicity a very potent political factor. Discriminatory colonial economic policies, that continued in a greater part of the post-colonial era, reflects ethnic differences and this has compelled ethnic groups to resort to ethnicity either as a means of political mobilization to protect their ethnic interest and economic advantages or to address the disparity in economic development and eliminate their economic disadvantages. The realities of colonial legacy and flawed political arrangement have enabled some politicians to easily exploit ethnicity.
Because of the defect and deficiency of the political model, it will require fundamental constitutional changes to neutralize the divisiveness of ethnicity. Although, policies of President Mills can help, it will take more than policies or good gestures such as "father to all Ghanaians". It will take fundamental changes to achieve national unity. It will take meaningful decentralization of political power, meaningful revenue-sharing between the state, the regions, and the districts. It will take acceptance of Africanism over ethnocentricism. It will take Neo-Africanism, the new ideology for a New Africa. It is evident that the long term permanent solution is political devolution of power to the regions and districts to ensure political equity and meaningful sharing of national revenue among regions and districts. This will assure economic equity across all socio-political groups. It is quite evident that ethnicity in Ghana has not been neutralized by the political structure, systems, policies, strategies, accommodations, and inclusiveness and all other efforts of Ghana governments and that a fundamental change of the political formation is required to neutralize ethnicity so as to bring about permanent peace, security, and prosperity to all irrespective of ethnicity.
Disparities in economic development across ethnic lines, policies continued from colonialism, have instigated people to use ethnicity as a source of political mobilization to address the adverse effect of colonialism. Notwithstanding the recent excellent annual economic growth, most Ghanaians, primarily from colonial marginalized regions, remain poor. The new pockets of prosperity have actually exacerbated ethnic inequality. Since the political arrangement do not permit meaningful sharing of political power and economic wealth amongst socio-political groups, ambitious Ghanaians continue to appeal to ethnic loyalties in seeking wealth and power through control of state resources. Such tendencies have given rise to “ethno-imperial business cronyism”, which has exacerbated ethnic inequality and fuelled ethnic competition for the monopoly of the power of the central government through the political party.
The power of ethnicity has divided Ghana into two antagonistic political camps. Two broad-based political parties continue to exist in Ghana even after more than fifty years of independence. The ulterior motive of each of these groups has created ethnic perceptions that impede efforts of presidential candidates to create national coalitions across all socio-political groups. It is evident from the political history of Ghana that no one socio-political group can successfully monopolize the presidency yet ethnic groups out of the imperative need to protect ethnicity resort to means to monopolize political power thereby creating perpetual tensions that rise to a crescendo at election time—the time when it is likely to further perpetuate monopoly of power or to grab it.
Ghana has enjoyed relative peace and tranquility since the beginning of the 4th Republic in 1992, although the influence of ethnicity in politics is quite strong. While Ghana has successfully prevented political violence, it cannot be said that Ghana has successfully consolidated its democracy. The re-introduction of multiparty elections in 1992 has not yet united Ghana because the power of ethnicity has prevented political ideology from uniting Ghanaians across socio-political groups. The regional voting patterns in the 4th Republic suggest that ethnicity is still a major political factor. Inarguably, ethnicity is a disturbing feature in Ghana politics. For this reason it must be totally neutralized expeditiously. Ethnicity has had a negative influence on Ghana politics. It has created political dynamics of sour ethnic relations, antipathy, tensions, and insecurity. It has compelled people to be inward looking to their respective ethnic groups for protection thereby preventing national integration. It has neutralized political ideology as a uniting force across ethnic lines. It has become the means to gain power and to sustain it. Although, tensions in Ghana have been contained by formal and informal means, the potential for the tense political environment to degenerate into political violence remains very high.
Ghana has emerged from instability and dictatorship and has embraced democracy, but ethnic fear and suspicions are so widespread and so intense that they continue to pose a threat to the stability of the state despite the new era of democracy. Ethnic mistrust is pervasive and they have polluted the political environment with political intolerance. 2008 Elections exposed serious problems of ethnicity. It revealed ethnic based political allegiance to the NDC and NPP. It is evident from the pattern of voting that the country is divided along ethnic lines, which could degenerate into entrenched cleavages if not addressed quickly and carefully. Political tension is always brewing below the surface but the political landscape does not always reflect it. Ghana passed a major political test but Ghana reflects an alarming political situation due to the abuse of ethnicity—the exploitation of ethnic passions for political and economic advantages.
Ghana’s Democracy is under Threat
The nascent democracy in Ghana is under threat. The budding democracy continues to be threatened by adverse colonial legacy, flawed political formation, and passionate ethnicity. The political dynamics of Ghana is a threat to Ghana’s democracy. The second peaceful alternation of power from one political party to another in a decade, do not necessarily consolidate Ghana's democratic transition and its nascent institutions. Ghana's success story comes from the fact that, some Ghanaians represented by the commissioner, the judge, and the president recognized the harrowing times Ghana has gone through in its history and resolved to uphold democracy. It is obvious that Ghana needs stability and democracy to ensure rapid progress. This is affirmed by the growth of Ghana since democracy was re-introduced in 1992. Ghana's average annual growth rate of 5.6 percent during the past six years has been one of Africa's highest, and the country has become a favorite of foreign investors as well as donors. It is obvious from the 2008 Elections that permanent stability and democracy required to sustain economic progress, is dangerously threatened by the scary political dynamics of Ghana.
Politically for a long time, Ghanaians have been yearning for genuine democracy that is as stable as our traditional African consensus democracy, a system in which all socio-political groups would feel protected because the political model permit meaningful political participation of all the constituting socio-political groups. Traditional Africa’s consensus democracy is far superior to the winner-takes-all majoritarian democracy. Ghana needs a consensus democratic system to sustain its fledging democracy. Without such, Ghana's developmental goals will be extremely difficult to achieve. Political brinkmanship, which is characteristic of majoritarian democracy, is antithetical to the consensus democracy of Traditional Africa. Inherently inequitable and antagonistic majoritarian democracy is inappropriate for Ghana. Political and economic inequality is a threat to democracy.
Majoritarian democracy is unsuitable in a nation of diverse socio-political groups with vast differential in population size. Majority rule is also inappropriate because it is inherently crises prone since it makes it easier for majority socio-political groups to use their large population size to monopolize power thereby creating a semblance of ethnocracy. In the 2008 Elections, Atta-Mills garnered a better national distribution of votes, winning more than 50 per cent in eight of the country's 10 regions. Akufo-Addo garnered more than 50 per cent of votes only in the Ashanti and Eastern Regions. Yet Mills nearly lost the elections because of the population size of the two regions that are predominated by two socio-political groups controlling NPP. This system of governance egregiously violates democratic representation in Africa, including Ghana.
Democracy—the meaningful sharing of political power and economic wealth amongst socio-political groups will be sustainable only if (and only if) the political formation is appropriate to the socio-political diversity of the nation. Democracy is unsustainable if the nation relies on periodic exemplary leadership and periodic change of government alone. Democracy will not evolve to unite a nation of diverse socio-political groups simply because of the magnanimity of the central government in the distribution of development projects to aggrieved or marginalized socio-political groups. This fact is affirmed by the political history of Ghana and Africa. Although the NPP government provided development projects for non-Akan areas the people voted overwhelmingly against the NPP. What Africa’s socio-political groups are looking for is not government charity but meaningful political and economic sharing of power and wealth. The ordinary Ghanaian will feel politically and economically empowered and will care about national unity only if elections do not condemn him to the doldrums of permanent marginalization. Meaningful democracy, therefore, is sustainable only by appropriate political arrangement. Therefore, it is imperative for Ghana to institute fundamental constitutional reforms in order to safeguard national unity and sustain democracy.
Political analysis indicates that constitutional reforms are required in order to avert future political crises in Ghana. The constitution must make it mandatory that to become the President of Ghana, a candidate must garner more than 50% of an Electoral College weighted average of national popular votes won and districts or constituencies won. Districts and constituencies are the geographic areas most reflective of Ghana’s socio-political groups. These geopolitical areas reflect more precisely the Land and People of Ghana. Mills won 50.5% of the national popular votes but won 131 constituencies, which is 56.96% of the 230 constituencies. Equal percentage allocation of Electoral College Votes to popular vote and to constituency (for example 50:50 allocation) would have translated to Electoral College win of 53.71% for Mills. (Atta-Mills 53.71%: Popular Percentage 25.23% plus Constituency Percentage 28.48%; Akuffo-Addo 46.29%: Popular Percentage 24.77% plus Constituency Percentage 21.52%). This result is far more representative since it is far more reflective of the will of Ghana’s socio-political groups in the 2008 Elections. This Electoral College System will ensure that the future president will be truly representative of the people—the socio-political groups of Ghana. This system will end the politically dangerous majoritarian democracy and enable consensus democracy inherent in our traditional African political organization to re-emerge to unite Ghana. This electoral system will eliminate the specter of a future president representing only the interest of one or a few socio-political groups.
A fundamental change is required for Ghana to keep the accolade the international community has bestowed on Ghana. The accolade of the pioneer of Africa’s independence from colonialism and the accolade of a pioneer of democratic consolidation in Africa are well earned. Kenya's Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, described Ghana as "a rare example of democracy at work in Africa." United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called Ghana "an admirable example." As in the early days of Ghana, when it gained independence, Ghana has gained the endearment of the international community once again for showing that democracy is not dead in Africa. Ghana's orderly transition of power is a bright spot after a dismal year for democracy in Africa. Although the accolade of pioneer of democratic maturity is duly earned, without fundamental constitutional reforms, the envious global status may be difficult to sustain. This is because the nascent democracy is dangerously threatened by the political dynamics.
History indicates that although colonialism planted the seeds of instability in Ghana, post colonial governments have failed to construct appropriate political structures and appropriate political systems to address the negative effects of ethno-regional economic development disparities bequeathed by colonialism and to address the petrifying ethnic fears that fuels ethnocentricism. Today, Ghana stands on the threshold of a brilliant and prosperous future. Our potential in national development could once more lift not only our own people but also the whole continent of Africa into a new era of achievement and dignity. Just as the visionary fervor of our first President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah set the pace for other African countries to copy, Ghana can recover its front seat now as a model of democratic practices. To achieve this laudable status, Ghana must be reformed, fundamentally.
The Indispensable Solution - The United Africa
Ghana and Africa must be constitutionally reformed because loose political union of colonial creations is incompatible to the preservation of stability and democracy. The modern African state is a loose union—a political amalgamation of traditional African states by Europeans and governed by foreign political systems that are not conducive to maintaining durable political stability in Africa. For this reason, the people of Ghana and Africa cannot rely on these imported foreign political concepts to maintain stability. Loose groupings of traditional African states created by colonialism are not the appropriate political formation for Africa. They are primarily the cause of tensions in Ghana and crises in Africa and therefore cannot be relied on to end them.
Notwithstanding the creation of a constitution, the current political structure and the political system of the modern African state grants inordinate political power to the central government and since the central government is almost always controlled by one or a few ethnic groups, tensions and crises are inevitable since other ethnic groups will not stop maneuvering to control the government and if they cannot will maneuver to secede. A small country like Ghana encountered secessionism in its early years. Therefore, a loose union that maintains the status quo cannot be a solution to Africa’s political problems because it is the problem.
The African political condition—endless tensions and crises is indicative of failures of Africa political formations, unitarism and federalism alike. Unitary and federal forms of government in Africa are loose political amalgamations that are fundamentally flawed due principally to the concentration of power in the central government. Consequently, they encourage ethnocentricism instead of Africanism, permit ethnocracy instead of democracy, and confer illegitimacy instead of legitimacy. The formational defects prevent survival of democracy and attainment of permanent stability and security. Chronic crises in Africa are consequences of failures of political structures in Africa. A clear evidence of the failed political formations is the proliferation of virtually illegitimate governments—virtual ethnocracies dominating the African political landscape. Africa’s political structures are inherently incapable of preventing ethnocentrism. Their inability to foster Africanism to neutralize ethnocentrism is a major testament to the failures of these colonial political constructs.
It is blatantly evident that the modern African state, including Ghana, is a structurally flawed political entity. The political structure is defective because it fosters regional supremacy leading to regional dictatorship. The political system is deficient in prevent personal or party supremacy leading to personal or party dictatorship. The political ideology is divisive because it fosters ethnic supremacy leading to ethnic dictatorship. Under these political conditions it is not surprising to see the political landscape of Africa littered with egregious marginalization and domination of many ethnic groups who are eager to secede because they can no longer bear the pain and humiliation of injustice and inequity. It is evident from African history of the past 50 years that in order to secure permanent peace, stability, and security for all Africans irrespective of ethnicity, race, or origin, the people of Africa must, as a matter of political prudence, embrace The United Africa, one continental political entity that will certainly provide all groups maximum protections. To permanently end all manner of dictatorships the loose unions must be properly knit together by a new and suitable political structure, system, and ideology. The new structure is The United Africa. The solution to Africa’s problems is …The United Africa. Therefore, “African Must Unite”!
Consequent to the proliferation of inappropriate political forms in Africa, Africa is confronted with too many crises. It is a political problem that requires a political solution. But, loose union is not the solution. It is a source of the political problem. The solution is not a state solution or a regional solution. The state is loose union, fragmented, and disunited. The solution is an African continental solution. The solution is a solid indivisible union of the African people. This means the solution is ---- The United Africa. It is the indispensable solution to tensions in Ghana and crises in Africa. The proposed new African nation is a solid continental political union that enables all ethnic groups to achieve their respective aspirations without marginalizing, infringing, violating, or abusing other ethnic groups.
Tensions in Ghana and crises in Africa can be ended appropriately and permanently by the creation of The United Africa, one continental political entity. Africa needs an overhaul of the political structure, system, and ideology in order to end crises and in order to activate its latent unlimited capacities for accelerated and sustained development. Africa needs a fundamental restructure with new political features that enable it to eradicate the chronic disease of crises forever. It is evident that the solution to tensions in Ghana and crises in Africa is…..The United Africa. Therefore, “Africa Must Unite”!
The United Africa will certainly acquire enormous political and economic attributes that will enable it to permanently and appropriately end tensions and crises in Africa, the most important attribute being super-neutrality. It will create a super-neutral continental African government and once it is created the socio-political responsibility of the ethnic group to avoid marginalization and to protect ethnicity automatically transfers from the ethnic group to a trusted neutral African political power, a power that cannot be controlled by any ethnic group as to endanger the social, political, and economic security of other ethnic groups. As a result of the devolution of political power through the new governmental structures and system of governance that create a continental government, the ultimate aspiration of the African ethnic group is realized—social protection is secured, political equity is achieved, and economic marginalization is eradicated. The parochial socio-political need to protect the ethnic group against ethnic threats is then replaced by a much broader African imperative need to protect all Africans against global threats. Unquestionably, a super-neutral African government is required not only to protect all Africans against global political and economic systems that keep Africa destabilized and under-developed but also to neutralize the power of ethnicity in African politics. Therefore, a government created by an equitable distribution of political power among Africa's socio-political groups is an essential prerequisite to eliminating ethnic threats, tensions, conflicts and crises in all Africa, including Ghana.
It is obvious that the inability of Ghana or other modern African states to ensure economic equity is partly due to the global economic yoke placed on each Africa state including Ghana, which Ghana cannot remove without political and economic unity with other African states. Ghana, just like all other modern African states must be an equal member of a continental united government—The United Africa in order to garner the capability to withstand global economic pressures and to permanently avoid endless ethnic political tensions, political instability, and economic malaise. Ghana must unite with Africa to substantially expand its economy, which then will enable it to acquire the economic resources to accelerate economic growth and eliminate economic problems that disproportionately affect some ethnic groups. Indisputably, the solution to Ghana’s political problems is……The United Africa.
This article, a sequel to my article published on GhanaWeb on January 6, 2006, is an abridged piece on Ghana from my book “Crises in Africa: The Solution is……The United Africa”
Papa Yalae, Author
“Neo-Africanism: The Ideology for a New Africa” – Published (http://www.trafford.com/08-0526)
“Crises in Africa: The Solution is …. The United Africa” – To Be Published (http://unitedafricaorganization.org/Books.html)
“The Road to a New Africa: An Easy to the African People”- Revised Edition to be Published
