Ghana, a country in the Sub-Saharan Africa that is known for a fair democracy development in the region tainted with democracy injustices. This paper will use elections and leadership to evaluate the democracy level for the country. The country is known to have conducted several elections which have been described by most people as fair and free in the recent times. The citizens of Ghana have been characterized by major democratic development during the previous decade.
Ghana was governed by a one party system of politics since 1979 until the enactment of a new constitution in the year 1992 allowing for more than one political party. The period between 1979 and 1992, the country was under the one party leadership of President Jerry Rawlings and his political party, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) (Marshall and Jaggers, 2010). With political pressures increasing in the country, the Rawlings administration was pushed to create a democracy commissioned that served as an oversight committee for the new multiparty constitution (Marshall and Jaggers, 2010). This was a major development in the country’s democracy.
Despite the new constitution, the leadership of Rawlings denied the country the democracy they had fought for by restricting other political parties other than the NDC. This was not only a major blow to the political parties of Ghana, but also to the democracy test for the country. The parties opposed to the NDC failed to submit their participation in the 1992 elections, marking them unfair and restricted hence undemocratic. The dominance of Rawlings’ political party continued to oppress the opposition and again in the following 1996 elections, the country’s democracy faced yet another blow with the NDC and Rawlings carrying on the day (Nugent, 2001).
The year 2000 elections in Ghana marked a major pass of the democracy test in the country with help of the new constitution of 1992. The constitution restricted a president from staying in office for more than two terms. This witnessed the automatic disqualification of President Rawlings to vie for the presidency. According to Lund; “The government acquired the land it needed for development without employing the proper legal instruments” (2008). This was observed as impunity and misuse of power to gain illegally. It is the reason why the Ghanaians may not forget the 2000 elections which changed all this allowing for democratic elections and leadership afterwards. In the 2000 poll Kufuor was unanimously elected as the president.
Kufuor’s government took over power and acted within the will of the people correcting the injustices done by Rawlings’ government. The injustices were investigated and this continued to boost Ghana’s democracy within its borders as well as the international community. All those who were believed to be Rawlings’ strong supporters of his policies were shown the door to allow for a democratic leadership as the people had wished for in a longtime (Lund, 2008). It was really a transition for the democratic Ghana.
The elections that followed the transitional 2000 poll were also described to be fair and transparent with no cases of injustice reported. It was a peaceful decision process by the way of the ballot by the citizens of Ghana that secured a second term in office for Kufuor. The 2004 elections set yet another record of democracy for the sub-Saharan country which decided to do it differently as majority of the region’s democracies are in questions with dictatorship, clinching to power and misuse of power.
While Ghana has managed to make major democratic developments, ethnicity factor continues to cross the line between democracy and political parties. “The New Patriotic Party has had its greatest support in Akan speaking regions (Brong, Ahafo, Ashanti and the Central, Eastern and Western regions) while the National Democratic Congress has had its greatest success in the Volta region among the Ewe and Krobos” (Marshall and Jaggers, 2010). This has threatened the just build democracy in Ghana and the 2008 election was partly influenced by that fact. Minor cases of election irregularity were reported but ignored by both the local and international community. “Ethnic block voting, amounts to a dangerous time bomb of unresolved conflict which could explode in future elections” (Jockers, Kohnert and Nugent, 2009, p.3).
President Atta Mills elected in the 2008 poll died in the year July 2012, constitutionally allowing the vice president John Mahama to be the president until an election conducted in December 2012. John Mahama won the presidency but since then the NPP party present a petition in court challenging the outcome of the election. This was a challenge to one of the most democratic countries in the region manly attributed by the ethnic divide.
In conclusion, Ghana is a fairly democratic nation of the sub-Saharan Africa despite the emerging ethnicity divisions. It has held most of its elections peacefully in the recent times. Leaders that followed after the fall of President Rawlings have demonstrated democracy and good leadership. Countries from the region have tried to learn from them on peaceful as well as fair and transparent elections. The country has also been praised by the West like the US. Ghana can therefore be considered a democratic nation.
References
Jockers, H., Kohnert, D., & Nugent, P. (2009). The Successful Ghana Election of 2008: A Convenient Myth? Ethnicity in Ghana's elections revisited.
Lund, C. (2008). Local politics and the dynamics of property in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2010). Polity IV Country Reports 2010 (Polity IV).
Nugent, P. (2001). Winners, Losers and Also Rans: Money, Moral Authority and Voting Patterns in the Ghana 2000 Election. African Affairs, 100(400).
