Introduction

The duration of a presidential mandate is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance, balancing the need for long-term policy implementation against the necessity of keeping leaders accountable to the electorate. In Ghana, this delicate balance is currently the subject of intense national discourse following proposals by the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) to extend the presidential term from four to five years.

Amidst this debate, a significant voice has emerged defending the status quo. Former Member of Parliament for Tamale Central, Inusah Fuseini, has publicly argued that the existing four-year timeframe is more than adequate to ensure accountability. Speaking on PleasureNews’ Newsfile, he utilized the political trajectory of former President John Dramani Mahama as a case study to demonstrate how a single term can be effectively evaluated within this period. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the arguments for and against the term extension, the constitutional background, and the practical implications for Ghana’s democracy.

Key Points

Background

The Current Constitutional Framework

Under the current Constitution of Ghana, the President is elected for a four-year term and is eligible for a maximum of two terms. This structure was designed to ensure regular democratic renewal and prevent the entrenchment of power. The four-year cycle creates a predictable rhythm for the political calendar, influencing everything from national budgeting to local constituency development.

The Constitution Review Committee (CRC)

The renewed debate stems from the work of the Constitution Review Committee. Chaired by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, the CRC was tasked with evaluating the 1992 Constitution to identify gaps and recommend amendments for better governance. Recently, the committee presented a summary of its findings to President John Dramani Mahama. A central pillar of their proposal is the extension of the presidential tenure.

Professor Prempeh has clarified that the document presented was a summary. The full report, expected in January, will contain detailed reasoning and data from public consultations. The committee’s rationale is rooted in the observation that a four-year term often results in a “compressed” governing period, where significant time is lost to transition and early campaigning.

Analysis

Inusah Fuseini’s Argument for Accountability

Inusah Fuseini’s intervention on Newsfile serves as a robust defense of the four-year term. His core thesis is that the frequency of elections is the primary mechanism for accountability. By allowing the electorate to pass judgment every four years, the system maintains a high level of responsiveness.

Fuseini specifically pointed to former President John Dramani Mahama. By stating that Mahama demonstrated the efficacy of the four-year term, Fuseini likely refers to the 2016 election outcome. In that instance, the electorate utilized their constitutional right to evaluate Mahama’s first term and decided to change the government. This serves as a practical example of the four-year accountability mechanism working exactly as intended. If a leader fails to meet expectations, the four-year window provides the opportunity for the electorate to effect change without an excessive wait.

The CRC’s Push for Continuity

On the other side of the debate, the CRC argues that the four-year term hampers long-term planning. Their proposal for a five-year term is based on the concept of governance stability. The logic follows that a five-year mandate allows a government to settle, implement complex policies, and see them through to completion before facing re-election.

The committee argues that the current cycle forces governments to focus on short-term “populist” projects to secure re-election within four years, rather than investing in difficult, long-term structural reforms. A five-year term, they suggest, would deepen reforms and improve the overall quality of governance.

The Risk of Power Concentration

Fuseini and other critics of the extension represent a counter-narrative focused on the dangers of prolonged power. The argument is that the closer the interval between elections, the more attentive a leader must be to the needs of the people. If the term is extended, the distance between the moment a leader takes office and the moment they face the voters increases. Critics argue this could lead to a “democratic deficit,” where leaders feel less pressure to respond to public sentiment in the middle of their mandate.

Furthermore, there is the philosophical question of whether the burden of proof should be on the government to prove they need more time, or on the opposition to prove they are ready to govern. Fuseini’s stance suggests that the burden of proof should be met within the current timeframe.

Practical Advice

For Policymakers and Legislators

As the full CRC report is anticipated in January, legislators must prepare to engage with the technical details of the proposed amendment. It is crucial that any debate on the presidential term limit is grounded in comparative analysis. Lawmakers should review international precedents—looking at countries with four-year terms (like the US) versus those with five or seven-year terms (like France or Mexico)—to understand the practical impacts on governance stability and accountability.

For Civil Society and the Electorate

Citizens must remain vigilant and informed. The debate over term length is not merely academic; it affects the fundamental checks and balances of the state. Civil society organizations should organize town halls to explain the implications of the five-year proposal. Voters should ask themselves: Does a longer term benefit the nation’s development, or does it simply provide a longer runway for government errors to go uncorrected?

For Political Parties

Political parties should articulate clear manifestos regarding constitutional reform. Instead of viewing this solely through the lens of who is currently in power, parties should consider the long-term institutional health of the country. If the National Democratic Congress (NDC) or the New Patriotic Party (NPP) supports or opposes the extension, they must explain how their position safeguards the democratic interests of Ghanaians.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Why does Inusah Fuseini believe the four-year term is sufficient?

Inusah Fuseini believes the four-year term is sufficient because it provides a regular and adequate interval for the electorate to assess the performance of a government. He argues that this frequency keeps leaders accountable and cites the example of John Dramani Mahama, whose presidency was subject to evaluation after four years.

What is the main argument for extending the presidential term to five years?

The main argument, proposed by the Constitution Review Committee, is to enhance policy continuity and governance stability. They argue that a five-year term would reduce the time spent on transition and campaigning, allowing the government more time to implement long-term reforms.

Is the five-year term proposal official yet?

No, not yet. The Constitution Review Committee has presented a summary of its findings to the President. The full, detailed report is expected to be released in January. After that, the proposal would need to go through the standard legislative and referendum processes to become law.

What are the risks of a longer presidential term?

Critics warn that a longer term could reduce the frequency of accountability, potentially allowing leaders to drift away from public opinion. There are also concerns that it could lead to the concentration of power and make it harder for the opposition to regain power if the ruling party performs poorly.

Conclusion

The debate over Ghana’s presidential term length is a clash between two vital democratic principles: the need for stability to execute development agendas, and the need for accountability to ensure those agendas serve the people. Inusah Fuseini’s defense of the four-year term highlights the success of the current system in facilitating peaceful transfers of power and holding leaders like John Dramani Mahama accountable.

However, the arguments put forth by Professor Prempeh and the CRC cannot be dismissed lightly. As Ghana’s democracy matures, the mechanisms that support it must also evolve. Whether the solution lies in a five-year term or in strengthening other accountability institutions remains to be seen. As the nation awaits the full CRC report in January, the discourse remains open, underscoring the vibrancy of Ghana’s democratic landscape.