Why Extending Ghana’s Presidential Term from Four to Five Years Is Not within the Interest of Ghanaians

Introduction

The discourse surrounding constitutional reform in Ghana has recently intensified, with a specific focus on the tenure of the executive branch. A Constitutional Review Committee, established under the administration of President John Dramani Mahama, has recommended extending the presidential term from the current four years to a five-year period. The committee argues that this extension is necessary to provide presidents with sufficient time to implement complex policies and development agendas, citing the example of other African nations where longer terms are the norm. However, a rigorous examination of Ghana’s democratic trajectory, voting patterns, and the principles of accountability suggests that such an extension is not in the best interest of the Ghanaian populace.

This article analyzes why maintaining the four-year presidential term is crucial for Ghana’s democratic health. While the argument for longer terms often centers on administrative continuity, the historical data and political reality indicate that extending the tenure risks diminishing the “dividend of democracy” for the average citizen. It threatens to dilute the mechanism of accountability that has defined the Fourth Republic and could lead to the consolidation of power at the expense of the people.

Key Points

Background

Ghana operates under the 1992 Constitution, which established the Fourth Republic. This constitution was designed to prevent the abuse of power and the military interventions that plagued the country’s earlier history. A key feature of this democratic framework is the four-year presidential term with a two-term limit. This structure was intended to ensure that leaders remain close to the electorate and are subject to frequent performance reviews via the ballot box.

Recently, the Constitutional Review Committee tasked by the government has proposed altering this foundational element. The proposal to extend the term to five years is predicated on the notion that the current duration is too short for meaningful policy execution. The committee argues that presidents spend the first year settling in and the final year campaigning, leaving only two years for actual governance. While this administrative perspective has merit, it overlooks the political and sociological realities of the Ghanaian voter and the historical performance of past administrations.

Analysis

The core of the debate lies in the tension between administrative efficiency and democratic accountability. To understand why extending the presidential term to five years is detrimental, we must analyze the historical voting data and the practical implications of longer tenures.

Historical Evidence: The Declining Mandate

One of the most compelling arguments against extending the term is the historical voting pattern of Ghanaian presidents under the Fourth Republic. Data indicates that while incumbents often win re-election, their popularity—measured by the percentage of valid votes cast—tends to decrease in their second term bid. This suggests that Ghanaians become less enamored with their leaders the longer they stay in office, utilizing the ballot box to signal disapproval.

Let us look at the verifiable data:

• Jerry John Rawlings (1992 & 1996): In the historic 1992 election, Rawlings secured victory with 58.4% of the vote. In his re-election bid in 1996, his support dropped slightly to 57.4%. While he remained victorious, the trend of diminishing returns had begun.
• John Agyekum Kufuor (2000 & 2004): Kufuor won the 2000 runoff with 56.9%. By the 2004 election, his vote share had declined to approximately 52.45%. Again, the electorate signaled a reduction in enthusiasm.
• John Dramani Mahama (2012 & 2016): Mahama won in 2012 with 50.7% of the vote. By 2016, facing a dissatisfied electorate, his support plummeted to 44.4%, resulting in a loss.
• Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo (2016 & 2020): Akufo-Addo won in 2016 with 53.7%. Seeking a second term in 2020, his vote share fell to roughly 50.4%.

These statistics reveal a clear pattern: the “honeymoon phase” ends, and the electorate becomes more critical. If the presidential term were extended to five years, the period of peak dissatisfaction (typically the fourth year) would be prolonged. This would mean that a president with declining popularity would remain in office for an additional year without the immediate check of an election, potentially leading to governance crises.

Practical Implications of a Five-Year Term

Diminishing Returns on Popularity

The committee argues that five years allows for better policy implementation. However, political capital is a finite resource. As the data shows, political support generally erodes over time due to the inevitable challenges of governance, economic fluctuations, and unmet expectations. Extending the term does not reverse this erosion; it merely extends the duration of a potentially unpopular administration.

Reduced Accountability

The four-year term is a critical tool for accountability. It forces the government to be hyper-aware of public sentiment. If a government knows it has five years before facing the polls, the urgency to deliver results or address grievances diminishes. In a democracy, the threat of being voted out is the primary incentive for good behavior. Lengthening the leash weakens this incentive.

The “Lame Duck” and “Rush Hour” Dynamics

Critics of the four-year term argue that the first year is for settling in and the last year is for campaigning. However, a five-year term does not solve this; it simply shifts the timeline. A five-year term would likely result in a year-and-a-half campaign season and a year of transition, leaving only three years and six months for governance—hardly a significant improvement over the current four-year cycle.

International Comparisons: Looking Up, Not Down

The committee cited other West African nations with five-year terms as a model. This is a flawed premise. Many West African nations struggle with democratic instability, coups, and poor economic performance. Ghana has established itself as a beacon of stability in the region. Why would Ghana emulate political systems that are statistically less stable?

Instead, Ghana should look to mature democracies that prioritize institutional strength:

• The United States: The President serves a four-year term, renewable once. This system has ensured stability for over two centuries. The four-year cycle is considered the “Goldilocks” duration—long enough to implement a vision, but short enough to ensure the President never drifts too far from the will of the people.
• Germany: While the Federal President serves five years, the Chancellor (the head of government) relies on the confidence of the Bundestag (Parliament). The legislative cycle is four years. This parliamentary system emphasizes that governance effectiveness comes from institutional checks, not just the length of the executive’s term.

These examples demonstrate that four years is a globally accepted standard for executive terms in high-functioning democracies.

Practical Advice

For Ghana to improve governance and ensure that presidents have enough time to deliver on promises, the solution is not to extend the term length. Instead, the focus should be on structural and administrative efficiencies.

Streamlining the Transition Process

If the concern is that presidents spend too much time “settling in,” the solution lies in improving the transition process between administrations. A smoother, faster handover of power—potentially managed by an independent transition authority—could save months of administrative time, effectively extending the governing period without altering the constitution.

Strengthening Institutional Continuity

One reason presidents struggle to implement policies in four years is the tendency to abandon previous projects. Ghana needs a civil service and institutional framework that ensures policy continuity regardless of the party in power. If development plans are institutionalized rather than personalized to the sitting president, a four-year term is more than enough to drive national progress.

Focus on Governance Capacity

Instead of asking for more time, the executive branch should focus on increasing capacity and efficiency. Modern governance tools, digitalization of government services, and reducing bureaucratic bottlenecks can accelerate policy implementation. The problem is rarely a lack of time; it is often a lack of efficiency or the diversion of resources toward re-election campaigns.

FAQ

Conclusion

The proposal to extend Ghana’s presidential term from four to five years is a solution in search of a problem. The historical voting patterns of the Fourth Republic tell a clear story: Ghanaians value accountability and the ability to effect change. While a president may feel constrained by a four-year cycle, that very constraint is a feature, not a bug, of a healthy democracy. It ensures that the government remains a servant of the people, not their master.

Extending the term would benefit sitting presidents by giving them a longer buffer between elections, but it offers no tangible benefit to the average citizen. In fact, it risks entrenching unpopular leadership and distancing the government from the governed. Ghana should resist the temptation to follow the lower standards of its neighbors and instead uphold the robust, four-year democratic standard shared by the world’s most stable nations. The path to better governance lies in stronger institutions, efficient administration, and strict adherence to the will of the electorate—not in extending the tenure of those in power.