Proposed 5-Year Presidential Term Will Be Tricky for Underperforming Presidents to Seek More – Prof Prempeh

Introduction

The debate regarding the duration of the presidential term in Ghana has taken a fresh turn with the proposal of a single, five-year term. This constitutional amendment idea has sparked significant discourse among political scientists, legal experts, and the general public. Professor Kwasi Henry Prempeh, a distinguished scholar in governance and constitutional law, has offered a critical analysis of this proposal. His central thesis is that while a five-year term offers benefits for governance continuity, it creates a uniquely difficult political landscape for incumbents who fail to deliver on their promises. Unlike the current four-year system, a five-year duration significantly alters the calculus of political accountability and the possibility of a second term.

At the heart of Professor Prempeh’s argument is the psychology of the voter and the practical realities of governance. He suggests that extending the term to five years provides a sufficient window for a president to implement policies and stabilize the economy. However, this extension also raises the stakes for performance. If a president underperforms over a five-year period, the electorate is less likely to show leniency compared to a shorter, four-year cycle. This article explores the nuances of this proposal, analyzing the background of the term limit debate, the specific arguments raised by Prof. Prempeh, and the practical implications for Ghanaian democracy.

Key Points

Professor Prempeh’s insights regarding the proposed five-year presidential term can be distilled into several key arguments. These points highlight the structural and psychological shifts that such a constitutional amendment would introduce.

Reduced Likelihood of Second Terms

The primary assertion is that a five-year term acts as a filter for underperformance. In a four-year cycle, voters might be willing to grant a second term to a leader who claims they need more time to complete their agenda. However, an extra year in the first term implies that a president has had ample time to execute their plans. Consequently, an incumbent who fails to meet public expectations after five years will find it extremely difficult to persuade the electorate to grant them another five years.

The “Sufficient Time” Argument

Proponents of the five-year term argue that four years is often too short to implement complex economic and social policies. Prof. Prempeh acknowledges that five years allows a president to pursue key financial backing objectives and stabilize the administration. The logic is that a longer term reduces the frequency of “mid-term” politicking and allows for more focused governance.

The Voter’s Perspective

Prof. Prempeh emphasizes the logic of the average voter. He posits that a voter might accept the argument that four years was insufficient for a struggling president. However, the argument that five years was insufficient rings hollow. As he stated, “If you haven’t done well in 5 years, Ghanaians aren’t really going to entertain the thought of giving you another 5 years.”

Discouragement of Premature Tenure Extensions

The proposal is also viewed as a mechanism to discourage attempts to extend tenure without achieving meaningful results. By setting a fixed, longer duration, the system aims to ensure that the focus remains on the delivery of the first term rather than the maneuvering for a second.

Background

To understand the weight of Professor Prempeh’s analysis, one must look at the historical and constitutional context of presidential terms in Ghana. The current Fourth Republic Constitution of Ghana, established in 1992, stipulates a four-year term for the President, with a limit of two terms. This structure was designed to prevent the entrenchment of power and ensure regular democratic renewal.

Evolution of the Term Limit Debate

The conversation around changing the presidential term duration is not new. It has surfaced intermittently, often coinciding with political transitions or constitutional review processes. The proposal to move to a five-year single term is often floated as a compromise between those who advocate for longer terms to ensure policy continuity and those who strictly oppose any extension of power.

Comparative International Models

Globally, presidential terms vary. The United States utilizes a four-year term with the possibility of re-election. Many countries in Africa and Europe utilize five-year terms. The shift to a five-year single term is similar to the model used for the French presidency prior to a 2000 referendum that shortened it to five years (while allowing re-election). Prof. Prempeh’s analysis suggests that Ghana’s specific political culture makes the five-year single term a distinct challenge for incumbents compared to other jurisdictions.

The Role of the Constitutional Review Committee

Prof. Prempeh made these remarks while commenting on the activities of the Constitutional Review Committee. This committee is tasked with examining the 1992 Constitution and recommending amendments to strengthen Ghana’s democratic architecture. The proposal for a five-year term is one of many potential changes being debated.

Analysis

Professor Prempeh’s commentary provides a deep dive into the political science underlying term limits. His analysis moves beyond mere dates on a calendar to the fundamental relationship between the ruler and the ruled.

The Psychology of the “Second Chance”

The core of Prempeh’s logic rests on the concept of “grace.” In a four-year system, a president who faces difficulties in the first term can campaign on the platform of “unfinished business.” The electorate, wary of instability, might grant a second chance. However, five years is a significant portion of a decade. Prempeh argues that five years is a “golfed” advantage for the incumbent—meaning it is a full round of opportunity. If that round is played poorly, the voter has no excuse to grant another round.

Accountability vs. Stability

The proposal creates a tension between accountability and stability. A longer term promises stability by reducing the election cycle’s disruption. However, Prempeh warns that this could lead to a “lame duck” scenario if the president is unpopular in the latter stages, as re-election is off the table. Yet, his specific argument focuses on the *entry* into a second term. He suggests the five-year term effectively functions as a de facto single term for anyone who does not perform exceptionally well, thereby increasing accountability.

Impact on Political Strategy

If implemented, this change would force presidents to alter their political strategies. The “mid-term slump”—where focus shifts to re-election campaigning—would be eliminated, but the pressure to deliver tangible results within the first four years would intensify. Presidents would have to ensure visible success well before the end of the term to even consider a second term, which Prempeh suggests would be rare under this model.

Veracity of the “Underperforming President” Scenario

Prempeh’s assertion is empirically grounded in political behavior. History shows that voters are less forgiving the longer a leader is in power without results. An underperforming leader seeking a third term (second term under this new rule) after five years faces a steeper uphill battle than one seeking a second term after four years. The fatigue factor is higher.

Practical Advice

For citizens, policymakers, and political actors trying to navigate this potential constitutional change, here are practical considerations based on Prof. Prempeh’s analysis.

For Voters

Assess Early Performance: If the term is extended to five years, voters should not wait until year four to judge a president. The “grace period” shrinks. Voters should establish clear benchmarks for economic and social performance within the first 24 to 36 months.

Understand the “Second Term” Logic: Recognize that a vote for a five-year term is effectively a high-stakes decision. As Prof. Prempeh notes, it will be harder to correct a mistake via a second term because the threshold for granting that second term will be much higher.

For Political Parties

Campaign on Delivery, Not Promises: Incumbent parties must realize that the “we need more time” narrative will likely fail under a five-year rule. Campaign platforms must emphasize what has been achieved in the first five years, rather than what will be done in the next five.

Prepare for Single-Term Governance: Parties should structure their long-term policy frameworks assuming only one term in office. This ensures that legacy projects are initiated immediately rather than postponed for a second term.

For Constitutional Architects

Clarify the Transition Rules: If the amendment is passed, clear legal guidance is needed regarding how it applies to sitting presidents (e.g., the “not applicable to Mahama” point mentioned in related reports). Ambiguity here can lead to legal instability.

Balance Executive Power: Since the executive faces higher accountability pressure, the legislature and judiciary must remain robust to check any desperate maneuvers by an underperforming executive.

FAQ

Conclusion

Professor Kwasi Henry Prempeh’s analysis of the proposed five-year presidential term offers a sobering perspective on the mechanics of democratic accountability. While the extension promises a longer runway for governance, it simultaneously removes the safety net of the “short term” excuse for underperformance. For the Ghanaian voter, this proposal implies a shift toward a more demanding evaluation of leadership—one where five years of results are the sole currency for political survival. As the national conversation continues, the insights of experts like Prof. Prempeh remain vital in shaping a constitutional framework that balances effective governance with the sovereign power of the people.

Sources

• Life Pulse Daily (Original Report on Prof. Prempeh’s Interview)
• 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana
• Reports from the Constitutional Review Committee of Ghana
• Comparative studies on Presidential Term Limits (International Foundation for Electoral Systems – IFES)