The Presidency: Why the four-year term must be defended

Read Comments Comments (3)

• Pelicles 15 hours ago

  Give a wise person a pesewa and can turn it into a million cedis, on the other hand, give a fool a million cedis and it will end up in pesewas.
  
  The argument of giving the president a-five-year-term is nothing more than tel ...
  read full comment

  Give a wise person a pesewa and can turn it into a million cedis, on the other hand, give a fool a million cedis and it will end up in pesewas.
  
  The argument of giving the president a-five-year-term is nothing more than telling the voter to stop worrying about the agony of living under a foolish leader.
  
  Paul Biya of Cameroon had presided over the country for how many years and is Cameroon's economy better than Ghana's?
  
  The four years presidential term is good enough for any wise leader to perform.
  
  John Mahama came for the second time and he is pulling down school buildings, banks and replacing them with markets so, what is the real reason behind such foolishness?

  reply

  report
• Sankento YW 14 hours ago

  It's 1 extra year. Stop acting as if one addition year makes incumbent, president of all. Lots of countries are doing fine with a five year term. All you are doing is fearmongering.

  It's 1 extra year. Stop acting as if one addition year makes incumbent, president of all. Lots of countries are doing fine with a five year term. All you are doing is fearmongering.

  reply

  report
• Sankento YW 14 hours ago

  I disagree.
  
  You claim that with a five-year term and a two-term ceiling, we would be locked into ten years of a failing administration rather than eight. This only holds if that administration wins re-election, which is no ...
  read full comment

  I disagree.
  
  You claim that with a five-year term and a two-term ceiling, we would be locked into ten years of a failing administration rather than eight. This only holds if that administration wins re-election, which is not guaranteed, incumbency advantage notwithstanding. Voters can remove a government. Your arithmetic assumes away the ballot box.
  
  You treat four years as if it gives voters a clean verdict on a government's performance. It doesn't. GDP, business investment, and wage growth take years to mature. The first year, sometimes even the second year, of a presidential term largely reflect the momentum, laws, and fiscal position left behind by the previous administration. Policy lags mean the results of an economic initiative are more likely to be visible after five years than four. If anything, that argues for a longer term, not against it.
  
  On the "global norm" you invoke: the four year presidential term is not the global norm. France, Germany, Kenya, South Africa, Indonesia, and South Korea all have five-year presidential terms. With a few exceptions, the four year term is really only the norm in the Americas. And among your own examples of metonymic cities, you name Nairobi among four-year-cycle capitals, but Kenya's president serves five years. If we are supposed to follow the global norm, five years is the way forward.
  
  You also say there is no credible evidence that longer terms deliver better development outcomes. But you have offered no evidence that a four year term delivers better outcomes. That standard cuts both ways. I would argue a five year term reduces short-term thinking, and you can't demand evidence from me that you haven't provided yourself.
  
  Finally, the four-year term is not so sacrosanct that it must be defended at all costs. France had a seven-year presidential term before switching to five after a referendum. Ghana's constitution is still young. There is no harm in trying a five-year term until the next constitutional review. If, after 25 years, we conclude four years was better, we can change it back. Constitutions are revised. That is what they are for.

  reply

  report