Increase in presidential term? Bad idea
E. Ablorh-Odjidja

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 make it necessarily a good idea.

The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Betty Mould-Iddrisu, has mentioned a possible constitutional review that would seek to increase the current term of presidents from four to five years.

She also mentioned that though this would be done by the current National Democratic Congress (NDC) administration, the idea was advanced by none other than ex-President Kufuor of the NPP party in his last address to parliament.

The thought that the Attorney General would refer to ex-President Kufuor as the source for the idea is amusing. The serious question to ask is since when did this NDC administration consider this gentleman as a successful president whose ideas are worthy of audience; much less appoint a committee to review one?

Besides, I can’t also help being amused by the thought that we are lowering the number of years kids spend in senior high school while for our adult presidents we expect to give extra time. But, to do what with the extra time?

Truth be told, the goal to increase the presidential term may be politically beneficial for some. But in the interest of national growth and maturity, it is as empty of nutrition as chewing long on a cardboard.

Obviously, this is a political move for more power. The pattern is available over much of Africa.

This pattern is when African presidents and political establishments make it their goal to perpetuate themselves in office. First to come is the demand for extension, then a lift of term limit. This move has had a long history. Witness what took place in Niger recently. Then consider Zimbabwe and the interminable presidential term of Mugabe.

In Ghana, we have our own history to learn from. We have had three presidents worthy of mention here. Presidents Nkrumah (9 years), Rawlings (19 years) and Kufuor (8 years). There is need to review the impact of longevity on their presidencies.

Rawlings ruled the longest, but what did he achieve in those 19 years that Nkrumah or Kufuor did not match or exceed?

One may argue that there is problem with our presidential governance but it cannot necessarily be true that this has something to do with the current four year term. After all, what we are yet to review are the personalities involved in the presidency, in addition to problems like potential corruption and/or hubris in a long term presidency.

Some may justify the bid for extension of term with the need to complete presidential programs and objectives.  The problem is not with the lack of time since these programs, if worthy, should be continued by the next regime.  It is with reckless reversals of these programs, engendered by party politics, sycophancy (when presidents are in office) and vindictiveness (when they are out).

Good ideas to build a nation need long term support. Good ideas if any, must have continuity. For this, we need an unbroken chain of respect for those ideas even when their originators are political opponents and are out of 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. These acts illuminate the notion that a president could be gone but his aspirations could still be potent.

There should be no term limit on good ideas, thus the notion of continuity must persist. Unfortunately, for most part of our history the opposite has always been gleefully observed.

Not every president will be stellar.  We are likely to have more seat warmers than historically effective presidents. Why then give the bad ones more time for damage? The thought of extending the presidential term harbors this risk.

There is a country like Honduras that has one four year term for presidents enshrined in their constitution. Constitutionally, they regard any attempt to change the one term as treasonable. They have placed their hope in their constitution rather than in the personality of a president.

Ghana has a four year term, with a renewable term limit for four more years. A year addition to each will not matter, if experience of the current political situation has any meaning, because whatever is achieved in the bloated term will be reversed the moment the president leaves office and has no power. The reversal exercise can begin, even among members of his own party. This, so far, has 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.  If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.