Let the Folks Come to a Decision: Prof. Prempeh Debunks Fears of ‘Young Presidents’

Introduction

The debate regarding the minimum age requirement for the presidency in Ghana has taken center stage once again, driven by the ongoing constitutional review process. At the heart of this discourse is the argument for inclusivity versus the preservation of traditional governance structures. Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, the Chairman of the Constitution Review Committee, has recently voiced strong opposition to the anxieties surrounding the possibility of “young presidents” entering the Jubilee House. His stance is clear: democratic mechanisms should be trusted to filter candidates, and the electorate should have the ultimate freedom to choose their leaders, regardless of age restrictions that may no longer be relevant to Ghana’s demographic reality.

This article delves into the constitutional history of age limits, analyzes the comparative governance models, and explores the practical implications of lowering the presidential threshold. By examining the arguments presented by Prof. Prempeh, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of why the “fear of the youth” might be misplaced in a modern democracy.

Key Points

Background

The Current Constitutional Framework

The 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana currently stipulates that a person seeking to become President must be at least 40 years old. This provision has been a subject of debate, particularly as Ghana prepares for a new constitutional instrument to replace or amend aspects of the 1992 framework. The Constitution Review Committee, chaired by Prof. Henry Kwasi Prempeh, is tasked with gathering public input and making recommendations to strengthen Ghana’s democratic architecture.

Demographic Realities

Ghana, like many African nations, possesses a “youth bulge.” A significant percentage of the population falls within the 18 to 35 age bracket. This demographic reality creates a disconnect between the electorate—who are largely young—and the leadership class, which is constitutionally mandated to be older. Prof. Prempeh highlights this as a crucial factor, arguing that a constitution should reflect the demographics it serves.

Historical Variations in Age Limits

It is a common misconception that 40 has always been the standard. Prof. Prempeh reminds us that the 1960 Constitution set the age at 35. However, the 1969 Constitution (under the Second Republic) lowered the threshold to 21. This historical context is vital; it proves that the age limit is a policy choice, not a sacred, immutable text. Under the 1969 Constitution, the legal framework allowed for significantly younger leadership, provided they met other qualifications.

Analysis

Deconstructing the “Young President” Fear

The primary argument against lowering the age limit is the fear of immaturity or lack of experience in the highest office. Prof. Prempeh challenges this by distinguishing between eligibility and electability. He argues that simply because a 30-year-old is eligible to run does not mean the electorate will elect them. The “fear” assumes that voters and political parties will suddenly abandon judgment and elect an unqualified candidate solely based on youthfulness. Prof. Prempeh views this as a lack of faith in the democratic process itself.

The Parliamentary System Analogy

One of the most compelling arguments raised is the comparison to parliamentary systems of government. In countries like the United Kingdom or Canada, the Prime Minister is typically a sitting Member of Parliament. The eligibility requirements to become an MP are generally lower than the specific requirements for a directly elected President in a republic.

Prof. Prempeh notes, “In parliamentary systems, anybody who can become an MP can become the Prime Minister.” This suggests that executive competence is often derived from the trust of the parliamentary party and the electorate, rather than a pre-set age threshold. If a parliamentary system allows a 25-year-old to become Prime Minister, the republic’s rigid age cap of 40 appears disproportionately high by comparison.

Historical Precedents in Ghana

To further validate the argument, Prof. Prempeh points to Ghana’s own history. Under the 1969 Constitution, which allowed 21-year-olds to hold office, the nation witnessed the rise of young talent. He specifically cited President John Kufuor, who served as Deputy Foreign Minister in his 20s. While Prime Minister Kofi Busia was older, the constitutional threshold allowed for a much younger deputy to exercise significant authority. This historical evidence demonstrates that Ghana has successfully navigated governance with lower age limits in the past without collapsing.

Symbolism and Inclusion

The argument for lowering the age is not necessarily about putting a 30-year-old in the Jubilee House tomorrow. It is about the “signal” sent to the youth. By maintaining a high age limit, the constitution implicitly suggests that young people are not yet “ready” for the highest responsibility. Removing or lowering this barrier is a gesture of inclusion, acknowledging that wisdom and leadership potential are not exclusively the preserve of the older generation.

Practical Advice

Understanding the Electoral “Filter”

For citizens concerned about the potential consequences of a lower age limit, it is helpful to understand how the “electoral filter” works. This mechanism protects the electorate from unqualified leadership:

1. Party Vetting: Political parties have internal mechanisms to vet candidates. They look at track records, education, and public perception. A party is unlikely to field a candidate who lacks the gravitas to win a general election.
2. Voter Judgment: The electorate generally prioritizes stability and competence. While youth can be an asset, voters balance it against the perceived need for experience.
3. Checks and Balances: The President does not rule alone. They operate within a cabinet, a parliament, and a judiciary. Even a younger President would be surrounded by a diverse range of advisors and officials.

Engaging in the Constitutional Review

Prof. Prempeh’s comments are a call to action for public participation. Ghanaians are encouraged to:

• Attend town hall meetings organized by the Constitution Review Committee.
• Submit written memoranda outlining their views on age limits and other governance issues.
• Debate the issues based on historical facts and comparative analysis, rather than fear.

FAQ

Conclusion

The conversation about the age of the presidency in Ghana is ultimately a conversation about trust—trust in the youth, and trust in the democratic process. Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh’s arguments offer a compelling case for moving away from arbitrary age barriers that may no longer serve the country’s best interests. By citing historical precedents and comparative governance models, he illustrates that the “fear of young presidents” is based on hypotheticals rather than hard evidence.

Ultimately, the decision rests with the citizens. As Prof. Prempeh eloquently stated, “The citizens will make that decision.” Whether the age limit remains at 40, returns to 35, or lowers to 21, the goal of the constitutional review is to ensure that the document serves the people of Ghana—all of them.