4 Years Is Simply Too Quick: Ghana Lags Behind Worldwide Democratic Standards, Says Constitution Review Chair

Introduction

The debate over the optimal duration for a presidential term is a cornerstone of democratic governance, balancing the need for effective governance against the risks of prolonged executive power. In Ghana, this conversation has gained fresh momentum following remarks by Prof. Henry Kwesi Prempeh, the Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee. He argues that the country’s current four-year presidential cycle is “simply too quick” and increasingly misaligned with global democratic norms. As Ghana seeks to solidify its status as a stable democracy in West Africa, the question arises: is the current constitutional framework hindering the nation’s developmental trajectory? This article delves into the specifics of Prof. Prempeh’s analysis, the background of Ghana’s constitutional history, and the practical implications of shifting to a five-year term.

Key Points

Background

Ghana’s Fourth Republic, established in 1992 following a period of military rule, has been hailed as one of the most durable democratic experiments in Africa. The Constitution was designed to prevent the abuse of power and ensure frequent accountability through the ballot box. Under the current provisions, the President serves a four-year term with a maximum of two terms. This structure was adopted to ensure that leaders remain close to the electorate and that the opportunity for change is frequent.

However, over three decades later, the practical realities of governance have exposed structural inefficiencies. The Constitution Review Committee was established to assess the performance of the 1992 Constitution and recommend amendments to address emerging challenges. Prof. Prempeh’s comments regarding the presidential term length are part of a broader examination of how Ghana’s governance architecture compares to international benchmarks. Historically, Ghana’s political trajectory has been heavily influenced by its neighbor, Nigeria. Both nations share a “lockstep” relationship regarding constitutional timelines, often mirroring each other’s choices on term limits and duration. This historical context is crucial to understanding why Ghana remains one of the few nations in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) still operating on a four-year cycle.

Analysis

Prof. Prempeh’s critique centers on two main pillars: administrative inefficiency and alignment with global democratic standards. The argument for extending the term is not merely about longevity but about the quality of governance.

The Problem of “Dead Time”

One of the most compelling technical arguments presented by the Constitution Review Chair is the issue of coordination lag. Upon assuming office, a new administration faces a daunting logistical challenge. Prof. Prempeh notes, “So you come in, you are supposed to appoint everybody. The new Council of State has to be convened before you appoint; consult them and appoint. So it takes forever.” This administrative bottleneck creates a period of “dead time”—often estimated to take up to six months to a year—where the government is effectively in setup mode rather than execution mode. When a term is only four years, losing 15-20% of that time to transition significantly erodes the window for policy implementation.

Global Comparative Norms

When analyzing international democratic standards, the data supports a shift towards longer terms. Prof. Prempeh highlighted that the committee gathered evidence showing a global norm shift from four to five years. While four-year terms are still common in North America, the trend in new democracies, particularly in Africa and Latin America, favors five years. Countries like Benin, Senegal, and Kenya have adopted five-year terms to provide leaders with sufficient time to execute complex development agendas. By remaining at four years, Ghana isolates itself from the regional consensus, creating a misalignment with its neighbors.

The Accountability Paradox

A common counterargument to extending term limits is the fear of authoritarian drift—longer terms could theoretically allow a leader to entrench power. However, Prof. Prempeh presents a paradoxical twist: a five-year term might actually enhance accountability. Under the current system, a president can claim that four years was insufficient to fulfill campaign promises, effectively campaigning for a second term to “finish the work.” Prof. Prempeh argues, “A Ghanaian voter might accept that four years is not enough and give you a second term to finish your work.”

However, if the term is extended to five years, the burden of proof shifts to the incumbent. “If you have five years, it is going to be difficult to convince a voter that five years was not enough,” he states. Consequently, the five-year term acts as a higher bar for performance. If a president fails to deliver tangible results in five years, the electorate is less likely to grant an extension. This suggests that a longer term could lead to fewer presidents securing second terms, thereby preventing the “eight-year syndrome” that has become a de facto norm in Ghanaian politics.

Practical Advice

For stakeholders, policymakers, and citizens interested in this constitutional amendment, the path to reform involves several strategic steps. Changing the term length requires a significant political and legal process.

1. Public Education: There must be a clear pedagogical campaign to explain that extending the term is not about extending the tenure of a specific individual but about improving the efficiency of the office. The focus should be on the “dead time” argument.
2. Comparative Studies: Civil society organizations should conduct deep-dive studies into the governance outputs of neighboring countries with five-year terms (e.g., Senegal, Kenya) versus those with four-year terms (e.g., Nigeria) to provide empirical data on development outcomes.
3. Legislative Engagement: The process involves a referendum. Activists and reformers need to engage with Parliament to ensure the bill for amendment is drafted accurately and presented in a timely manner.
4. Addressing Concerns: Proponents must proactively address fears regarding potential abuse. As Prof. Prempeh noted, “Since any number is arbitrary, then let’s be guided by comparative best practice.” The argument should be framed around “best practice” rather than “political expediency.”

FAQ

Conclusion

The argument presented by Prof. Henry Kwesi Prempeh challenges the status quo of Ghanaian politics, suggesting that the four-year presidential term is a relic that hampers effective governance. By highlighting the administrative “dead time” and the shifting global standards, the Constitution Review Chair makes a compelling case for a five-year term. While concerns about power retention are valid, the analysis suggests that a longer term could paradoxically serve as a stronger mechanism for accountability. As Ghana continues to mature as a democracy, revisiting the duration of the presidential term to align with global best practices is a debate that is not only timely but essential for the nation’s long-term development.