Ghana is once again debating the rules that govern its democracy. The latest proposal from the Constitution Review Committee to extend the presidential term from four to five year has generated strong public interest. Constitutional reform is important. But this particular change carries serious risks for democratic accountability and offers little in return.
A Constitution that Came from the People
One of the greatest strengths of the 1992 Constitution is the way it was crafted. The 1991–92 Consultative Assembly brought chiefs, students, workers, civil society organisations and political actors together in a genuinely participatory process. While the Assembly drew on earlier technical work — including the contributions of the National Commission for Democracy led by Justice D. F. Annan and the S. K. B. Asante Committee — these inputs were ultimately shaped and moderated by a broad national conversation. The resulting document carried a depth of public legitimacy that few of Ghana’s earlier constitutional experiments ever achieved.
Today’s review processes are markedly different. They are increasingly technocratic, dominated by lawyers, governance experts and policy specialists. Their expertise is valuable, but it also means reforms often reflect technical logic rather than the deliberative spirit that guided the original settlement. The recent push to reframe Ghana as a “developmental democracy” instead of an “electoral democracy” illustrates this technocratic drift. Developmental models often rely on strong, centralised authority and top‑down planning, treating politics and public debate as obstacles to efficiency. But Ghana’s own history shows the risks of this approach: concentrated power, weakened local institutions, and limited space for scrutiny. The 1992 Constitution deliberately countered these tendencies by dispersing authority and strengthening participatory governance. Re‑embracing developmentalist logic risks sidelining these safeguards and recentralising power in ways the Constitution was designed to prevent.
What Is Driving the Push for a Longer Term?
The proposal for a five-year presidential term has not come from citizens. It has not been demanded by communities, unions, youth groups or professional bodies. Rather, it appears driven by a technocratic diagnosis that Ghana’s political cycle is “too short” or “too political” for long-term planning.
But this reading misunderstands the logic of the 1992 Constitution. The framers saw politics — debate, negotiation, scrutiny — as central to good governance. They did not view politics as a nuisance; they viewed it as the bedrock of accountability.
Reducing the frequency of elections risks weakening this democratic foundation. It prioritizes administrative convenience over public oversight.
Assurances Cannot Remove the Structural Risk
President John Mahama has stated that he will not seek a third term, and the Committee has assured Ghanaians that no sitting president will benefit from the extension. These assurances matter, especially on a continent where incumbents have often manipulated constitutional changes to cling to power.
But they do not address the core problem. A longer presidential term expands the period during which the executive governs without returning to the electorate. Although the Committee has proposed innovative reforms to strengthen Parliament — including barring MPs from holding cabinet portfolios and introducing proportional representation — these cosmetic changes underestimate the deeper challenge of excessive partisanship and the entrenched dominance of the executive. In a system where Parliament already struggles to consistently check presidential authority, extending the presidential term further tilts Ghana’s political balance toward the presidency, regardless of who occupies the office.
Why the Four-Year Renewable Term Still Works
The argument that four years is “too short” overlooks a central feature of the current presidential term: renewability. The framers recognised that transformational reforms cannot be completed within a single term. Their solution was the renewable mandate – effectively providing up to eight years for governments that earn the public’s trust.
Ghana’s political history supports this logic. Every government that has performed credibly has secured a second term. A term longer than four years risks trapping the country under a non‑performing or abusive government for too long, increasing the cost of poor leadership. The four-year cycle is therefore not a barrier to development.
It is a vital accountability mechanism
International Comparisons Miss the Point
Advocates of a fiveyear presidential term often argue that “many other countries do it.” But this claim overlooks a crucial fact: the countries commonly cited typically have far stronger institutional safeguards than Ghana. In South Africa, for instance, the president is elected by Parliament and can be removed by it — an accountability mechanism built into the system. In Chile, presidents serve a longer single term but cannot seek immediate reelection, preventing the entrenchment of incumbency.
Ghana’s context is very different. The presidency is among the most powerful in Africa, while parliamentary oversight remains inconsistent. Recent developments — from the suspension of the AuditorGeneral to controversies involving the Chief Justice and the Public Services Commission — show how easily accountability institutions can be weakened or politicised. Strengthening these bodies is essential. However, expanding presidential tenure while checks and balances remain fragile introduces significant risks.
Equally important, experience across Francophone Africa points decisively in the opposite direction. Countries that once operated with long presidential terms have, over the last two decades, shortened them in response to political crises, contested elections and rising public demand for accountability.
Senegal offers a clear example: in 2016, a national referendum reduced the presidential term from seven to five years as part of a broader democratic reform effort aimed at limiting executive dominance. In the Comoros, repeated constitutional adjustments have sought to prevent prolonged incumbency and stabilise politics after earlier periods of overcentralised power.
Across much of Francophone Africa, the trend has been toward more frequent elections, not fewer — precisely because long, unbroken presidencies often became flashpoints for crisis rather than anchors of stability. Ghana should be cautious about moving in the opposite direction.
Winner-Takes-All Politics Is Not a Constitutional Requirement
Many citizens are frustrated by winner-takes-all politics. But this is not mandated by the 1992 Constitution. It is a political choice made by successive governments that centralised decision-making in the presidency, and a judicial/legislative choice to whittle down strong constitutional safeguards for exercising presidential appointing powers and reduce the security of tenure for public officers.
If Ghana seeks better governance, the priority should be reforms that:
▪ strengthen parliamentary oversight
▪ deepen fiscal and administrative decentralisation
▪ reduce excessive presidential appointing powers
▪ improve transparency and accountability
▪ revitalise civic education
A longer presidential term does none of these.
The Questions Ghana Must Ask First
Before changing something as fundamental as presidential term, Ghanaians must ask:
1. Whose interests does this reform serve?
2. What problem does it actually solve?
3. Why is it being pursued despite limited public support?
4. How might future leaders exploit this shift in power?
Until these questions are convincingly answered, this proposal remains a high-risk, low-benefit change.
The Bottom Line
A five-year presidential term may sound like a small, and timely, administrative adjustment. But its consequences for accountability, institutional balance and democratic credibility are significant. If Ghana is serious about deepening its democracy, it should resist reforms that reduce opportunities for citizens to evaluate their leaders. Extending the presidential term does exactly that. And for this reason, it threatens – rather than strengthens – Ghana’s democratic trajectory.
About the author:
Dr Nelson Oppong is an Associate Professor in African Studies and International Development at the University of Edinburgh and Executive Director for the Africa Governance Centre.
