Presidential term - Better a good man for four years than a dunce for five

E. Ablorh-Odjidja
January 06, 2016

Is a five-year presidential term, instead of four, good or bad?

This is one idea that keeps coming up; one idea that means much for those who have vested interest in the power of the office.  For, holding office for a long stretch of time is a lucrative enterprise, particularly for those who happen to be presidents in Africa.

For the rest of us, after all is done, especially when nothing profitable has been gained, the experience then becomes our loss, a complete waste of time, and, certainly for a long time to come, a lingering residue of painful reflections on the wasted years.

But the idea of presidential tenure length is worth a critical look again.

The Ghanaian Minister of Interior, Mr. Mark Woyongo, has suggested that "a five - year presidential tenure" for the country would be a good idea.

The reason, he said, will assure "that the winning party fully executes its development agenda."

Are we to read into this a surrender – a failure of his party to fulfill its agenda; or see it as a reluctance to confront the real demons that have for so long bedeviled our progress as a nation?

We should assume both situations as reasons for the proposal.  Still, the solution offered doesn’t tackle adequately the entire problem of our developmental impasse.

Within Woyongo’s solution are two variables that ought to be noticed - the duration of the term of presidential office and the personality elected to fill the post.

If history is a teacher, it ought to be noted quickly that we have rarely have the occasion in which to fit both variables.  The first was before 1966 and the last was 2008, when we had personalities in office to produce acceptable or stella results.  The rest of the leaders have been utter failures.   

So, instead of worrying about the longevity of the term in office, I suggest it will help to concentrate on the merit of the personalities we put into the presidential office.

Some African presidents, once elected into office, quickly extend their terms in office.  They then move on to corrupt the office and the political processes to assure that they remain in power.

The long incumbency also provides them an extended access to the national treasury.

And soon, do-nothing cronies that depend on them for sustenance gather to help them lengthen the stay in office.

By trickery and corruption, others achieve the term extension through constitutional changes.  They end up creating a legal platform that allows most incompetents to remain in power for longer terms, thereby prolonging the stress within the society.

Mr. Woyongo is asking for a constitutional change in the hope that it will promote chances for faster and better development.

Senegal, Congo, Rwanda already have seven-year presidential terms.  Most nations on the continent have five years per term.  So is Burkina Faso, the country Wayongo has used as an example.

Nineteen years of constitutional and unconstitutional rule by J. J. Rawlings of the NDC regime (1981-200), of the same party that Wayongo serves today, has the same longevity effect that the proposal seeks.  But this lengthy period of one-party rule proved lackluster, in that it brought the worst discernable socio-economic changes for the country.

 Put together, all the developments in these long presidential term countries are yet to prove spectacular so as to command emulation.  Post-colonial development, for all, has been woeful. 

And this point to a lack in the leaders we find in office.  A "better Ghana" is a worthy agenda and Ghana needs this agenda.  But only an able leader can hit the ground and start implementing the required programs with any certainty of success within the current four-year term.

With regard to the duration of the term itself, it ought to be approached as a political behavior problem.  Rather than lengthening it, tweak what would be required within the term, and make constitutional demands for leadership to follow.  

First, a continuity demand; that programs created by a party in government, already approved and funded by Parliament, must be continued, regardless of the wishes of a successor opposition party.

Second, that failure to observe the continuity demand must prohibit a leader in rule from standing for a re-election.  And that this demand continuity can only be overruled by a super majority in Parliament and NOT at the whim of a party or leader in power.

Continuity must be a requirement in our governance.  The tendency by ruling parties to reverse policies of past regimes they don’t like, no matter how good those were, is the real hindrance to development.

Policy reversals have been the tendency since the 1966 coup.  The "Better Ghana " agenda promoted by the current government, even if successful during this term, can be reversed on a whim by the next party in government.

But on the subject of longevity, why five years as suggested by Wayongo and not 20 years?  How do we justify continuing support for a regime that is unable to start and finish its agenda in four years or doesn't know how to pass on the ideas to the next regime?

A complete thought on these questions could have provided Wayongo a degree of caution in his proposal:  That five years of productive work under a brilliant leader can also be followed in five years by a roll back of the same under a dunce.

In short, a longer term has nothing to do with the solution.

It is already proven that some countries, like the USA, do well under the shorter four-year term and plans and projects are continued successfully by the next regime.

 Paraguay has a single 5-year presidential term (no repeat).  And they do well too.

Development of a country is a cooperative effort.  Good works, after acceptance, must be passed on from regime to regime, regardless of ideological differences of parties in government. 

Had Kufuor's regime followed immediately after Nkrumah, a greater tolerance of continuity could have emerged. 

Some projects would have been continued without interruption.  The Golden Triangle infra-structure of roads and highways planned under Nkrumah would have proceeded without stop and the Tema Motor Way and the Bush Highway would have been completed parts of the same projects and within a shorter period of time. 

The Bui River Dam and the Afram Plains developments also would have been completed decades ago. 

But the Nkrumah part of these projects was truncated in 1966 because of bad faith and anathema for the name Nkrumah by regimes that followed.

.
Nkrumah had a total of six years as President.  And Kufuor had two four-year terms. Had there been more continuity and less policy reversals, from Nkrumah's time to the present, Ghana would have been a far advanced country than now, despite the presidential term of four years.

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, January 06, 2016.
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at all.