The Hypocrisy of Ghana’s Civil Society

Winner Takes All Agitations: The Hypocrisy of Ghana’s Civil Society

Ghana’s constitution promotes multiparty democracy and is premised on a Presidential system of governance in which the President as head of the executive is granted enough executive power to run the affairs of the state in order to provide leadership at all critical levels of state governance to drive the development agenda of the nation.

The so called winner takes all accolade is a reference to the system of executive power as provided under the Ghanaian constitution in which the President and his political party wield political power to the exclusion of all other political parties at all levels of governance. The “anti winner takes all” crusade is essentially therefore an attack on the constitution of the Republic of Ghana as presently structured.

The Institute of Economic Affairs(IEA) is a civil society group in Ghana that has recently ignited the debate on the winner takes all system and is championing the anti winner takes all crusade albeit with an obvious political bias. This is clearly demonstrated by IEA’s recent composition of a winner takes all committee that is largely made up of members who openly identify themselves with the New Patriotic Party. Indeed it is obvious the committee has been constituted with the singular objective of endorsing an anti winner takes all platform, and is aimed at ensuring that executive power is not concentrated in the hands of a winning political party and government especially the current NDC Government and party which they hate with a passion.

The hypocrisy of the IEA and such other civil society groups and opinion leaders spearheading this anti winner takes all crusade is that for eight years that the NPP was in power, the winner takes all system of governance was never a problem in Ghana’s political dispensation. Indeed these civil society groups were not heard on any platform agitating against winner takes all politics which was essentially the same mode of governance practiced then as is being practiced by President Mahama and the NDC today. So what has changed since 2009? Is it because certain civil society groups in Ghana are uncomfortable with the fact that there is a government and party in power that they are politically opposed to? Would they be making the same noise if a party they prefer was in power? Certainly not.

It is therefore unfortunate that they have reduced our politics to such hypocritical levels such that objectivity does not count to such civil society groups who have shamelessly aligned themselves politically and yet seek to be recognized as independent think thanks. How then does the IEA set up an anti winner takes all committee made up largely of people with NPP leanings and hope that their recommendations would gain broad acceptance in the country?

The problem with politics in Ghana is not the so called winner takes all political system but rather the refusal of political parties and their civil society surrogates to accept governments of political parties that they are opposed to when they are elected by the people, and their refusal to give them the needed political space to execute the four year mandate of the people.

It is obvious that Ghanaians have chosen a constitution that envisages strong executive power to lead their development agenda periodically. Indeed there is a strong argument in favour of strong executive leadership for third world countries which seek a fastrack path towards economic development as opposed to a government with weak executive power as is being advocated by the anti winner takes all crusaders. The Malaysians, Singapores, Rwandans and China that are so highly touted as trail blazers have all developed under strong executive political leaders devoid of little or no political inclusion. In the case of Ghana the real focus of the political debate should be on introducing political inclusion at the district and municipal levels without necessarily weakening executive power at the centre to promote political consensus building. In addition, emphasis should be placed on strengthening the judicial and legislative arms of government to enhance their independence and significance within the governance framework in order to ensure that they serve as a check on the executive.

Parochial and hypocritical based agitations against so called winner takes all politics should be seen for what they truly are ie agitations aimed at weakening an executive President and Government which is not the preference of certain prominent civil society groups, opinion leaders and their political surrogates. Indeed one can certainly predict that these agitations would cease should it happen that political power change hands in 2016. The real enemies of Ghana’s progress are the political elite and civil society groups and their hypocritical tendencies which often lets them sacrifice the national interest for their parochial political interests.

In any event what do the anti winner takes all agitations entail? It entails compelling political parties to collaborate regardless of their ideological orientations.

The anti winner takes all crusade therefore essentially subverts the peoples mandate and is nothing but an agenda for power sharing contrary to the tenets of true democracy. Most democracies around the world thrive on competitive politics in which the peoples mandate is respected and not subverted. The problem arises where the losing party and its civil society allies refuse to respect the people’s mandate and seek ways to subvert that mandate through so called anti winner takes all agitations.

Civil society groups should rather focus their energies on advising political parties to be true democrats who should respect the people’s mandate, and bid their time and market themselves for the next election to secure the peoples mandate.

Political parties have different ideological inclinations and offer the people differing choices of philosophies and strategies for development during elections. To compel them to share power leads to confusion and a paralysis in governance with its obvious negative consequences for nation building.

Forward ever, Backward Never.

Report By: Mensah Dekportor (Hamburg)

Email: cmdekportor@gmail.com