The appointment of Ghana's Electoral Commission members has sparked debate about the potential influence of the appointing President on the outcome of elections. A recent opinion piece reflected on the contradiction between celebrating the Ghanaian voter as discerning and independent-minded, while also speaking as though the outcome of the next election has already been negotiated through appointments to the Electoral Commission. This tendency has raised concerns about the Commission's impartiality and the impact on the country's democracy.
Public concern about the Electoral Commission is understandable, given the critical role it plays in determining who exercises public power. Citizens are entitled to demand competence, integrity, and impartiality from every commissioner. However, vigilance can become habitual suspicion, and political argument can exaggerate the power of the institution. The Electoral Commission has an indispensable role in Ghana's democracy, but it does not possess the electorate's power to choose a government.
Two recent elections in Ghana offer a useful starting point for understanding the appointment process. In 2015, President John Dramani Mahama appointed Charlotte Osei as Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, but Mahama lost the presidential election in 2016. In 2018, President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo appointed Jean Mensa as Chairperson, but the governing New Patriotic Party lost the presidential election in 2024. These events suggest that appointing the chairperson of the Electoral Commission does not guarantee victory for the appointing President or governing party.
The symmetry of these examples lies in the fact that each major party has experienced defeat under a Commission chaired by a person appointed by its own government. This should temper the certainty with which some claims about electoral appointments are made. The lesson applies equally to the NDC and the NPP, and each party has reason to approach the subject with greater humility. Ghana's electoral history should help refine arguments and prevent the repetition of claims that experience has shown to be uncertain.
Behind every election result are citizens weighing the circumstances of their lives, making judgments that cannot be reduced to the identity of an electoral commissioner. When elections are explained almost entirely through appointments to the Commission, ordinary people's political agency is overlooked. Citizens are treated as spectators in an exercise whose outcome is supposedly arranged elsewhere, which is a poor account of democracy.
Ghana's Constitution allows the President to appoint members of the Electoral Commission on the advice of the Council of State, while also protecting the Commission from external direction or control. Appointment and operational independence are intended to coexist, and a commissioner's authority comes with obligations defined by public office. The person who makes the appointment does not acquire a claim over how those obligations will be discharged.
The Electoral Commission's constitutional responsibilities include compiling and revising the voters' register, demarcating electoral boundaries, conducting public elections and referenda, and educating citizens about the electoral process. These responsibilities are substantial, and decisions about registration, access, logistics, and electoral procedures can affect whether citizens participate effectively and whether contestants compete fairly. Ultimately, the Commission must provide a fair process, safeguard its integrity, and declare the lawful outcome.
Key points
- The appointment of Ghana's Electoral Commission members has raised concerns about impartiality and the impact on the country's democracy.
- Recent elections in Ghana have shown that appointing the chairperson of the Electoral Commission does not guarantee victory for the appointing President or governing party.
- The Electoral Commission plays a critical role in Ghana's democracy, but its authority does not include a preference about who should govern.
