Increase in the presidential term? Bad idea

E. Ablorh-Odjidja

December 17, 2009

Why increase the presidential term? I suppose the answer will be because the four-year term has not worked.

Not true, and neither will the excuse that ex-president Kufuor was first to propose it, as offered by Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Betty Mould-Iddrisu, make it necessarily a good idea.

But the trend to proceed with the notion continues.

Attorney General Iddrisu has recommended a possible constitutional review that would seek to increase the current term of presidents from four to five years.

And she has urged that this could be accomplished by the current National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration.

The reference to ex-President Kufuor as the source for the idea is amusing.  But since when did this NDC administration consider President Kufuor's ideas worthy of consideration; much more appoint a committee to review one of his ideas?

There has to be a motive.  The notion must help the NDC and its adherents.

While this push for an increase in presidential terms goes on, I can’t help being amused by the thought that it was the same NDC that pushed to lower the number of years kids spend in senior high school.

Adults must have time to mature their chances for success as presidents, but our youth must shorten theirs for the same while at the senior high school stage.

Truth be told, the plan to increase the presidential term is political.  It seeks time as a necessary element for the growth and accomplishment of goals.  But there is a hidden motive.  It is one of entrenchment of a personality and a party in power.

Additionally, this plan is meant to take place at the wrong end of the developmental spectrum.   Developmentally, the idea is as nutritious for a nation as it is for a man chewing long on a bone past mealtime.

This longer-term presidential ploy is what is available over much of Africa.  

First would come to the demand for extension, then a total lift on term limit will follow. Witness what took place in Niger recently. Then consider Zimbabwe and the interminable presidential term of Mugabe.

In Ghana, we have our history to learn from. We have had three experiences worthy of mention here.

President Nkrumah had nine years, one term as prime minister and the other two, though uncompleted, as president, Rawlings had a total of 19 years, eleven of which were military-style takeover.  And Kufuor eight years, all under two constitutional terms.

Rawlings ruled the longest, far longer than the total terms for both Nkrumah or Kufuor.  He also had the brutal force of the military behind his rule for most of his time, but his achievement could not match either Nkrumah or Kufuor's.

One may argue that there is a problem with the individual presidential style of governance.  But it cannot necessarily be truly argued that the fault belongs to the current four-year term.

What we are yet to review are the personalities involved in the presidency against the terms they are presently allowed to serve. 

And here, we must take into consideration that the character of the people we vote into the presidency matter.  The competence they bring to the office now and what happens to them later when these same officials are returned for second terms need to be probed.

 Some have said that the need to complete programs and objectives that presidential aspirants bring to power may justify the bid to lengthen the term. 

The problem for this position is that worthy programs proposed are not like the food on offer and therefore should not be thought of as subject to decay.

If worthy, the ideas a president brings into office must be left to stand long after he has left the office.  There would be more justification for their continuance by others after than any we may offer to keep the same personalities in office longer.

These are the same personalities that couldn’t complete these programs while in office. 

Perhaps, we need at this juncture to revive a concept that is particular to all developmental projects.  It is called continuity.  For continuity to happen in our current political system, the current administration must learn to cooperate with the next.

Instead, there have been in our circumstances the reckless need to suppress continuity, to reverse the good leftover from preceding regimes. 

This negative tendency is engendered by the nature of our party politics; by vindictiveness when new parties come to power.

For development to happen, the good ideas (not personalities) to build a nation, need nurture and long-term support.  

This must call for an unbroken chain of respect, that transcends party loyalty, for originators of preexisting potent ideas - from former administrations, even after they leave the office to new ones when they come into the office. 

One glimpse of hope was during the Kufuor years. All of a sudden, ideas from the Nkrumah era became attractive and doable.

Another was President Mills' support for the celebration of Founder’s Day for Nkrumah.  An acknowledgment that illuminates the notion that a president could be gone from office but his aspirations and ideas could still be remembered and celebrated because they were that potent.

Unfortunate for us, and most of our history, the opposite has been what has been gleefully observed.  But instead of looking for a solution to cure the lack of continuity, we are off looking to extend presidential terms in office.

Personalities in office are different.  Not every president will be stellar. 

We are likely to have more seat warmers than consequential presidents.  We must seek to hurry the bad ones out of office, not seek to entrench them in office over a longer-term.

There is a country like Honduras that has one four-year term for presidents enshrined in their constitution. Any attempt to change this is regarded there as treasonable.  As much as we can tell, Honduras is doing just as well as any African country is doing right now.

Ghana has a four-year term, with a renewable term limit for four more years. This is enough.  Five years is, at best, a bloated term that will reward only incumbent presidents and their associates. 

What we need is not a lengthening of the presidential term, but a policy that establishes continuity.  The policy reversals of the past has, so far, been a bi-partisan trend.

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, December 17, 2009

Permission to publish:  Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited.