Why a Third Political Force is Not Ghana’s Solution: A Critical Analysis with Yaw Nsarkoh

Ghana’s political landscape, like many emerging democracies, is periodically punctuated by calls for a “third force” – a new political alternative to challenge the dominance of the two main parties. However, this idea has been met with significant skepticism from prominent voices. Yaw Nsarkoh, a seasoned business executive and former Unilever Executive Vice President, recently articulated a powerful critique. He contends that the solution to Ghana’s governance challenges lies not in creating another political party, but in instituting fundamental, systemic reforms centered on transparency and accountability. This article delves into Nsarkoh’s arguments, contextualizes them within Ghana’s developmental journey, and provides a framework for understanding what genuine political repair truly entails.

Introduction: The Allure and Peril of the “Third Force”

The concept of a “third political force” in Ghana is seductive. It promises a break from perceived cycles of corruption, patronage, and underperformance associated with the long-standing duopoly. Proponents argue that a fresh, ideologically clear, and accountable alternative could reset the nation’s political course. On the surface, this aligns with democratic principles of competition and choice. Yet, Yaw Nsarkoh’s intervention, made during an appearance on Joy News’ PM Express, cautions against this seemingly intuitive solution. He posits that without addressing the underlying architecture of political power and finance, a new party risks simply replicating the very pathologies it seeks to cure. This introduction sets the stage for a deeper examination of governance, history, and the non-negotiable prerequisites for sustainable development.

Key Points: Deconstructing Nsarkoh’s Core Argument

Yaw Nsarkoh’s perspective can be distilled into several critical, interconnected points that challenge conventional political discourse:

• Skepticism of Form Over Function: The mere creation of a new political entity (a “third force”) is insufficient. The problem is systemic, not partisan.
• Transparency as the Primary Goal: The foundational need is to inject radical transparency into political financing, appointments, and decision-making processes.
• Historical Context is Non-Negotiable: Comparisons with developed Western nations are often ahistorical and ignore the unique, often exploitative, paths (slavery, colonialism) that funded their initial capital accumulation.
• Look to Relevant Models: Ghana should study the developmental trajectories of Asian economies that achieved rapid, transformative growth from similar starting points, adapting lessons to its own context.
• The Absence of Serious Debate: He questions whether substantive, bipartisan policy discussions on national development are genuinely occurring at the highest levels of government, or if politics remains a zero-sum game for power and patronage.

Background: Ghana’s Political Economy and the Third Force Discourse

Ghana’s Democratic Journey

Since returning to constitutional rule in 1992, Ghana has been celebrated as a beacon of democracy in West Africa, with peaceful transfers of power between the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP). However, this two-party system has coexisted with persistent challenges: endemic corruption perceptions (as measured by Transparency International), high public debt, unemployment, and debates over the equitable distribution of resource wealth. These issues have fueled public disillusionment and periodic civil society and intellectual movements calling for a “break” from the duopoly.

The Third Force Proposition

The call for a third force typically emerges from a coalition of disaffected voters, civil society organizations, and sometimes dissident members of the main parties. It is built on the premise that the existing parties have become ideologically indistinguishable, captured by elite interests, and incapable of bold reform. The proposed solution is a new party with a clean slate, a compelling manifesto, and a promise of integrity. This narrative gains traction during economic downturns or after major corruption scandals. Nsarkoh’s argument intervenes directly in this narrative, suggesting its foundational assumption is flawed.

Analysis: Why a New Party May Not Be the Answer

Nsarkoh’s analysis is a masterclass in applying historical and structural thinking to contemporary political problems. He moves the debate beyond superficial party politics to the deeper rules of the game.

The Replication Risk: Opaque Funding and Accountability Gaps

Nsarkoh’s most immediate warning is practical: “A third force to do what also goes around and gets money from all sorts of people in opaque ways and not be accountable, then they’re just replicating this.” This cuts to the heart of political finance. In many democracies, including Ghana’s, political party funding is often opaque, relying on large, untraceable donations from businesses, wealthy individuals, and even state resources. A new party, lacking a grassroots donor base, would likely depend on the same opaque sources to compete electorally. This would immediately create debts and loyalties to the same powerful interests that allegedly plague the current system, neutralizing any promised independence. Without a legal and cultural shift towards transparent, public funding mechanisms or strict donation caps and disclosure laws, a new party is born compromised.

The Danger of Superficial Comparisons: Lessons from Singapore, US, and UK

Nsarkoh astutely challenges lazy comparisons. When critics point to Singapore’s success under a dominant-party system (PAP) or the institutional stability of US/UK two-party systems, he demands a look at history.

• Singapore: He notes its lack of three parties but highlights its unique, top-down, technocratic development model, which is not easily replicable and comes with its own democratic deficits. The point is that outcomes matter more than the number of parties.
• The United States & United Kingdom: His most provocative point concerns historical trajectory. He argues that the capital accumulation that built the West was fueled by the transatlantic slave trade and colonial exploitation of natural resources. “The transatlantic slave trade was not just simply an act of wicked people. It was a source of cheap labour… Today, who do you propose to enslave? So that option does not exist.” Similarly, “If we are talking about people who were able to access natural capital through the agency or dark agency of colonialism today, who is Ghana going to colonise? It doesn’t exist.” This is not a moral justification of those crimes, but a stark reminder that Western prosperity was built on a foundation unavailable to post-colonial states. Therefore, their political models emerged from a specific, unrepeatable historical context. Imitating their political form without acknowledging this historical asymmetry is naive.

Shifting the Focus: Structural Reform and Transparency

Nsarkoh redirects the conversation from who holds power to how power is exercised and funded. The core need, he states, is “to bring transparency to the political system.” This is a structural, not a partisan, demand. It encompasses:

• Campaign Finance Reform: Laws requiring real-time, public disclosure of all political donations above a minimal threshold.
• Asset Declaration and Verification: Robust, independently verified declarations for all public officeholders and their families, with public access.
• Freedom of Information (FOI): Full implementation and culture of an FOI regime, allowing citizens and media to scrutinize government contracts, negotiations, and decision-making.
• Independent Oversight Institutions: Strengthening bodies like the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the Auditor-General, and the Electoral Commission with genuine financial and operational autonomy.

These reforms would constrain any party—old or new—from operating in the shadows. They create the environment where performance, not patronage, can become the basis for political support.

Learning from Asia: The Relevant Comparative Lens

Nsarkoh advocates for a more pertinent comparative study: “We must look at the fact that some of the people who have made it from our kind of peripheral poverty to prosperity in our lifetime are in Asia.” He refers to the “East Asian Miracle” economies like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and later Vietnam and China. These nations, many with one-party dominant or highly managed political systems, achieved staggering growth through:

• Strategic, long-term industrial policy.
• Massive investment in education and technical skills.
• High levels of state capacity and meritocratic bureaucracy.
• Export-oriented development models.
• Relatively low levels of corruption during their high-growth phases (though this varies).

The lesson is not to copy their political systems, but to analyze the policy instruments, state-society compacts, and developmental focus that delivered results. Ghana must ask: How can we build a capable, honest state that can execute a coherent, long-term national development plan? This question transcends party politics.

The Critical Absence of Bipartisan Developmental Debate

Nsarkoh’s most damning critique is about the quality of political discourse itself: “Where is this debate happening in Parliament? No, they are all standing there trying to guilt-trip each other and think about how I can win power the next time, so that I’m the one who’s appointing people… So serious development talk on a bipartisan basis, I am asking, where is it happening?” He describes a political class trapped in a cycle of opposition for opposition’s sake, personality-driven politics, and the distribution of patronage through appointments. The grand narrative of national transformation—like the “Ghana Beyond Aid” agenda—is undermined by daily partisan bickering that avoids the tough, technical choices required for structural change. The absence of a shared, evidence-based national development blueprint that outlives governments is a fundamental weakness.

Practical Advice: Pathways to Genuine Political Repair

If a third force is not the primary solution, what is? Based on Nsarkoh’s framework and broader governance literature, here are actionable pathways:

1. Champion and Demand Systemic Transparency Reforms

Civil society, the media, and professional associations must make political finance reform and asset declaration their non-negotiable top priorities. This means:

• Lobbying for the amendment of the Political Parties Act and the Public Office Holders (Declaration of Assets and Disqualification) Act to be more stringent, transparent, and enforceable.
• Using technology (e.g., open-source platforms) to track and visualize political donations and declared assets.
• Mobilizing public opinion through sustained advocacy, framing transparency as a national security and development issue, not just a “good governance” buzzword.

2. Build a Cross-Partisan “Development Council”

To address the absence of bipartisan debate, an independent, respected council of technocrats, academics, business leaders, and former public servants should be established. Its mandate:

• To develop a 20-year National Development Blueprint based on data, not ideology, focusing on productivity, human capital, and economic diversification.
• To publicly score every government’s performance against the blueprint’s key indicators.
• To serve as a credible, non-partisan source of policy analysis for both sides of the political aisle and the public.

3. Foster Sub-Regional and Continental Cooperation

Nsarkoh’s question, “Can we cooperate better as a sub-region?” is crucial. Ghana cannot solve its structural challenges in isolation. Practical steps include:

• Aggressively pursuing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to create a larger, integrated market for Ghanaian goods.
• Collaborating with ECOWAS on cross-border infrastructure (energy, transport, digital) to reduce business costs.
• Jointly advocating for reforms in international financial institutions and for fairer climate finance, amplifying Ghana’s voice through regional blocs.

4. Invest Relentlessly in State Capacity

Development is executed by the state. This requires:

• Merit-based, depoliticized recruitment and promotion in the civil service, especially in key economic ministries (Finance, Energy, Trade).
• Continuous, high-quality training for public servants in project management, procurement, and data analysis.
• Competitive compensation to attract and retain top talent in the public sector.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions

Q1: But hasn’t the two-party system failed? Isn’t change through the existing parties impossible?

A: N