The Price of Power: Why Ghana must fix campaign financing now

Ghana’s democracy has survived difficult moments, and we have every reason to be proud of how far we’ve come. But beneath the peaceful elections and colourful campaigns lies a growing problem we have avoided for far too long: the way our political system is financed.

Election after election, the cost of running for office skyrockets, and the desperation to raise funds pushes politics into the hands of people whose interest in the country may only be profit, not progress.

Campaign financing in Ghana has become a powerful hidden force that shapes decisions before, during, and after elections.

Those who provide money to political actors—contractors, business elites, politically connected individuals—are rarely doing it out of charity. They see campaigns as investments. And when their preferred candidates win, they expect returns. The repayment does not come from the personal pockets of politicians; it comes from state resources. Contracts get inflated, procurement rules bend, and national priorities quietly shift to reward those who sponsored the journey to power.

Ordinary citizens feel the consequences, even if they do not connect the dots. When hospitals lack basic equipment, when public schools fall apart, when potholes become death traps, and when taxes rise without visible progress, those outcomes are not accidents. They are symptoms of a political economy that quietly drains national resources into private political obligations.

We Ghanaians sometimes participate unknowingly. During campaign season, small gestures—transport money, a T-shirt, a meal—feel harmless. But they create expectations and obligations politicians must repay later using public funds. What looks like kindness today becomes the justification for misusing state resources tomorrow.

And it does not stop there. Even within political parties, internal contests have become expensive battles. Delegates expect “something small,” and aspirants spend heavily to secure party leadership or win primaries. These internal costs eventually get passed on to taxpayers. When a candidate finally gets into public office, they must repay these internal political debts.

When voters—whether delegates or ordinary citizens—accept money to support a candidate, they unintentionally plant the seed for corruption, contract inflation, and diversion of public resources. The money received today becomes the lost development of tomorrow.

One of the clearest national examples of opaque political decision-making is the controversy surrounding the National Cathedral. What started as a symbolic idea slowly turned into a major financial commitment involving public funds.

The public still does not know how contractors were selected, why costs changed repeatedly, or which political negotiations shaped the project’s direction. Whether one supports or opposes the cathedral is not the main issue.

The real concern is how easily political promises made within elite networks can convert into national financial obligations without sufficient transparency.

The cathedral debate exposes the deeper problem: decisions tied to campaign loyalties and private alliances can quietly override rational development priorities.

Election years also come with rushed spending. Projects appear suddenly, contracts get awarded quickly, and budgets swell for reasons the ordinary citizen cannot explain.

Civil servants quietly complain about being pushed aside by politically loyal appointees, even when they lack the competence needed to run institutions. Over time, professionalism suffers, and institutions weaken.

There is also a growing security concern. As campaigns become more expensive, political actors may be tempted to accept funds from sources that threaten national stability—illegal mining financiers, organized networks, foreign interests, or individuals involved in illicit activities.

Once such actors enter the political ecosystem, they become extremely difficult to remove because they now hold influence over elected leaders.

So what can Ghana do?

The first step is honesty. We must admit that campaign financing is draining our development efforts. The money politicians spend during elections is eventually paid for by the state—through inflated contracts, poor procurement, and weak budget discipline.

Second, Ghana needs strict transparency. Political parties and candidates should be required to disclose who funds them and how the money is spent.

Third, the country must introduce spending limits. It is simply unrealistic for someone to spend millions pursuing a job with a salary that cannot honestly repay such expenses.

Fourth, civic education must change. Citizens must understand that taking money during campaigns is not harmless. It has real economic consequences that affect their children, their communities, and the entire country.

Finally, Ghana should consider an independent institution to regulate campaign financing, investigate suspicious funding flows, and enforce transparency.

The price of political power in Ghana has become unsustainably high. If we fail to address this now, our elections will become even more expensive, corruption will deepen, institutions will weaken further, and development will continue to stall.

Ghana deserves better. And it starts with fixing how we finance politics.