The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in Ghana has expressed opposition to a proposal aimed at extending the tenure of the country's President and Members of Parliament from four to five years. According to the IEA, the current four-year mandate is sufficient for elected governments to prepare and implement their policies, given that they are adequately prepared before assuming office.
The IEA's stance was articulated by former Chief Justice and IEA Fellow, Justice Sophia Akuffo, at a press briefing preceding an IEA "Views and Reflections" seminar. The seminar aimed to examine the recommendations of the Prempeh Committee and the government's position on proposed constitutional reforms. The Prempeh Committee had suggested that presidential and parliamentary terms be extended to five years, a recommendation that has been accepted by the government.
The government's rationale for accepting the recommendation is that an additional year would allow administrations more time to formulate, implement, and evaluate policies. However, the IEA disagrees, arguing that political parties and prospective governments should undertake thorough preparations before taking office. This, according to the IEA, would enable them to begin implementing their programs immediately upon assuming power.
Justice Akuffo emphasized that governments should not spend a significant portion of their tenure setting up their administrations. She noted that political parties typically prepare for years before coming into office, and therefore, they should be ready to implement their policies from the outset. Akuffo also raised concerns about delays in appointing ministers and other key officials, which further reduces the time available for governments to deliver on their mandates.
The IEA's opposition to the proposal also stems from concerns about democratic accountability. The institute argues that shorter electoral cycles strengthen citizens' ability to hold elected officials accountable. While proponents of the extension argue that an additional year could provide governments with more time to implement long-term programs, the IEA contends that policy discontinuity may be caused by broader challenges, including weak institutions and inadequate planning.
The IEA recommends that any consideration of extending the tenure should be linked to efforts to strengthen the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC). A credible long-term national development framework, according to the IEA, could help successive governments implement major programs within the existing four-year mandate while ensuring continuity around a shared national development agenda.
The debate over the proposed five-year tenure highlights the need to balance effective policy implementation with democratic accountability. As the government considers the proposal, it will be crucial to weigh the potential benefits of an extended tenure against the potential risks to accountability and the overall health of Ghana's democracy.
Key points
- The IEA argues that the current four-year mandate is adequate for elected governments to prepare and implement their policies.
- The government has accepted the Prempeh Committee's recommendation to extend presidential and parliamentary terms to five years.
- The IEA recommends strengthening the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) as part of any consideration of extending the tenure.
