Winner Takes All: Ghana’s Enduring Democratic Dilemma

In Ghana’s political tradition, one phrase echoes loudly in both celebration and lamentation— winner takes all. It is a doctrine, a ritual, and sadly, a democratic misnomer that has shaped the destiny of the Fourth Republic. Political parties in opposition fiercely condemn it as the bane of our democracy, yet once enthroned in power, they find themselves intoxicated by its sweet privileges. The cycle continues: promises of reform fade into silence, and silence mutates into complicity.

What is Winner Takes All?

Winner takes all, in the political sense, is the operational practice where the victorious party, through the authority of the President, assumes almost total control of governance structures— political, administrative, and even economic.

Article 70 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana arms the President with sweeping appointment powers: Chief Justices, Auditor-General, Chairpersons of Commissions, Heads of Public Corporations, Regional and District Administrators, and many more. The intent may have been stability, but in practice it has bred an over-centralisation of power.

The results are clear: the Presidency becomes the fulcrum upon which the wheels of governance turn. A Ghanaian President, under the current constitutional arrangement, is less a servant of the people and more a monarch with democratic legitimacy. He can determine whether an individual or business thrives, survives, or collapses.

The Dangers of Winner Takes All

The dangers are not merely theoretical—they are lived realities.

1. Erosion of Accountability: District Chief Executives (DCEs) and Metropolitan Chief Executives (MCEs), appointed by the President rather than elected by the people, owe their loyalty upwards, not downwards. Their accountability is to the appointing authority, not the grassroots they are meant to serve.

• Exclusion of Opposing Regions: Regions or districts that predominantly vote for opposition parties are often ruled by presidential appointees they did not choose and would never have accepted as their natural leaders. This breeds alienation, resentment, and sometimes subtle resistance.

• Fragile Democracy: Democracy is meant to be the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. But when the grassroots have no say in who governs them locally, democracy risks becoming hollow—a ritual of electing lawmakers while administrators remain imposed.

4. Cycle of Joy and Tears: Ghana’s ritual of alternating power every eight years between the NDC and NPP has led to what some call eight years of smiles, eight years of tears. If the ruling regime is competent, a section of society smiles; if incompetent or despotic, the entire nation groans. Why must the fortunes of over 30 million people hinge on the competence or lack thereof of a single administration clothed with near-absolute authority?

A Philosophical Reflection

Our traditional political structures did not know this misfortune. In the chieftaincy system, power was balanced by the presence of family heads, clan elders, and councils. A chief is not a solitary sovereign; he embodies the collective will of his people. As the Akan proverb teaches, “One head does not go into council”—wisdom lies in the gathering of many voices.

Why then should our modern democracy retreat into solitary centralization when our indigenous systems embraced inclusive governance?

Necessary Reforms

The Constitutional Reform Committee must return to this unfinished business with courage and honesty. Several reforms are crucial:

1. Election of DCEs and MCEs: Decentralization, properly so called, means that the people at the grassroots must have the right to choose their leaders. The election of local government heads should no longer be postponed. It is the first step toward genuine democracy.

• Curtailing Presidential Powers: Articles 70 and 243 of the Constitution must be reviewed to limit the President’s sweeping appointive authority. Checks and balances are not signs of weakness; they are the foundations of democracy.

• Inclusive Governance: Power must be shared not only across political lines but also across institutions. Civil society, independent bodies, and local assemblies must be empowered to stand as counterweights to executive dominance.

• Building Accountability Structures: Local leaders must be answerable to the people who live under their administration, not to the politicians who appointed them.

Conclusion: A Call to Courage

Reforming winner takes all will taste sweet to those in opposition and bitter to those in power. Yet for the neutral citizen and for democracy itself, it is a reform long overdue. Ghana must rise beyond this cycle of alternating joy and sorrow, beyond the ritual of centralised power, and embrace a future where leadership springs from the genuine choice of the people.

If democracy is truly to be government by the people, then the people must have a voice not only at the national level through Members of Parliament and Presidents, but also at the local level through leaders they can call their own.

The danger of ignoring this is clear: a democracy where the people have no voice is but a tyranny wearing a democratic mask.

As the sages remind us, “A house built on a single pillar will collapse with the weight of the storm.” Our democracy must stand on the many pillars of participation, accountability, and inclusion—only then will the Fourth Republic mature into its full promise.

Written by Dr. Yao Eli Sebastian Nafrah, PhD

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.