The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in Ghana has expressed its disapproval of a proposal to extend the tenure of the country's President and Members of Parliament from four to five years. According to the IEA, the existing four-year mandate provides sufficient time for governments to implement their programs. Former Chief Justice and IEA Fellow, Justice Sophia Akuffo, stated that there is no compelling evidence to justify extending the current term.
The proposal to extend the presidential and parliamentary terms was made by the Prempeh Committee, which recommended an additional year to allow governments more time to formulate, implement, and assess policies. However, the IEA maintains that governments should be prepared to begin implementing their programs immediately after assuming office. Justice Akuffo emphasized that political parties and prospective governments should undertake necessary preparations before taking office rather than using a significant portion of their mandate to establish their administration.
Justice Akuffo criticized the delays in appointing ministers and other key officials, stating that such delays reduce the time available for governments to execute their programs. She noted that it shouldn't take six months to appoint ministers and people into key positions. The IEA's stance on the matter is that the debate over the proposed five-year term should consider the need to balance effective policy implementation with democratic accountability.
The IEA further argued that a key issue for consideration is whether policy discontinuity is genuinely caused by the four-year electoral cycle or is instead the result of weak institutions, inadequate planning, and successive governments abandoning or redesigning programs initiated by their predecessors. The institute suggested that a credible long-term national development framework could enable successive governments to implement substantial programs within four-year mandates.
The IEA's proposal is to strengthen the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) to ensure that governments can work towards a common national development direction. This, according to the IEA, would enable governments to implement their programs effectively within the four-year term. The institute's stance is that the proposed extension should be considered alongside efforts to strengthen the NDPC.
The government's acceptance of the Prempeh Committee's proposal has sparked controversy, with some arguing that an additional year would provide more time to implement long-term programs. However, opponents maintain that shorter electoral cycles strengthen citizens' ability to hold elected officials accountable. The IEA's rejection of the proposal has added to the debate, with the institute emphasizing the need for effective policy implementation and democratic accountability.
The issue is expected to continue sparking debate as Ghana considers proposed constitutional reforms. The IEA's stance on the matter is clear: the existing four-year mandate is sufficient for governments to implement their programs, and efforts should focus on strengthening institutions and planning rather than extending the term. The institute's proposal to strengthen the NDPC is seen as a way to ensure that governments work towards a common national development direction.
Key points
- The IEA rejects the proposal to extend the presidential and parliamentary terms from four to five years.
- The existing four-year mandate provides sufficient time for governments to implement their programs, according to the IEA.
- The IEA suggests strengthening the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) to ensure effective policy implementation and democratic accountability.
