Ending the winner-takes-all system of governance
I have followed some of the debates on the need to end the Winner-Takes-All (WTA) system of governance.
Advertisement
For such a topic of national importance, it would have been pertinent for the organisers, the Institute of Economic Affairs, to provide an address to which ordinary citizens like me could send in their contributions. It is not possible for all potential contributors to be able to attend the fora organised. If there is such an address, I am not aware of it so I am resorting to the print media to send in my penny’s worth.
The WTA system is certainly one of the biggest challenges to our young democracy. It is one of the root causes of corruption, inefficiency and ineptitude in governance.
Ending it in order to tap all the talents in Ghana for development would do us a lot of good. Before we can successfully end it though we have to tackle the root causes of the problem. Ending it under prevailing conditions is likely to meet stiff resistance from political parties, especially those that consider themselves likely to win power.
In my articles I like to be brutally honest so that we do not beat about the bush and make the wrong choices.
Root cause
The root cause of the problem was articulated by two members of parliament representing the two major parties, Messrs Alban Bagbin of the NDC and Dan Botwe of the NPP who were present at the final public consultation hearing on July 29, 2014.
In the July 31, 2014 issue of the Daily Graphic, they were reported to have objected to ending the WTA system and expressed the wish that the forum should have rather focused on the problem of funding political campaigns.
Mr Bagbin was reported to have gone on to say that political parties were private entities and individuals had to borrow money to contest elections, which money had to be repaid, and wondered why after winning election they should be required to share power.
Fellow countrymen, therein lies our problem. Those who spend their money, time and energy to organise political parties to contest elections are not philanthropists. They have made an investment from which they expect a return.
That return must materialise within the 4 years that they are in power as there is no guarantee that they will win the next election. Wealthy Ghanaian political philanthropists do not exist. If we fail to understand this important point, our campaign to end the WTA system would be a futile exercise.
State funding of political campaigns
Why do we think that some government appointments are square pegs in round holes? It is not because our political leaders do not know that some appointments are inappropriate.
The truth is that the persons involved contributed to the attainment of power and must be compensated. If the people of Ghana have to suffer as a result so be it. If we - the ordinary people - want to have the moral right to demand an end to the WTA system for the sake of peace and progress then the state must be willing to fund political campaigns. If we are unwilling to do this then we must shut up and be prepared to put up with whatever the politicians throw at us.
Those of us who collect cash handouts from politicians before voting for them must think again.
Those monies did not fall from heaven. They are investments that must be recouped with a return and that is a major contributor to the corruption, inefficiency and open looting of the national coffers that we are complaining about. I am not saying that corruption will stop as soon as we start funding political campaigns but we would have removed a major justification for the thievery. We would also then be justified in our demand for inclusive governance.
Part of the cause of the political tension and threat of violence after elections results from the realisation by the losing party that the huge investments made by its members cannot be recouped, at least not immediately. Four or more years of waiting looks like an eternity and the frustration can lead to violence. If some of that cost can be mitigated through state support of the campaign process, it would go a long way to reducing the political temperature.
Educating the electorate
We must also be aware that there is still a lot of ignorance in our society, therefore the high level of civic sense necessary for a successful democracy is absent. In many communities, the people see their Member of Parliament, for instance, as someone they can throw their problems at – children’s school fees, hospital bills, funeral support, food needs etc. Because the people do not understand the duties of a Member of Parliament, the parliamentarian feels obliged to respond positively or risk losing his seat next time. Where would the funds for this kind of expenditure come from? All these lead to corruption.
Apart from funding political campaigns, we must intensify education of the electorate so that we can improve the quality of our young democracy. The outcome of elections is not determined by the few enlightened people in our society. It is determined by the deprived masses of people who reside in our towns and villages and the slums of our cities. We have to bring them on board to have any chance of improving our governance system.
Recommendation for ending the WTA System
My recommendation is amending the constitution to end the WTA system is a must but it must include a clause to institutionalise state funding of political campaigns. That would be the surest way to get our political class to support its adoption.
We must do it in a way that would not encourage unscrupulous people to form all manner of political parties at election time just to collect state funds.
There must be a formula that should include the number of seats the party won in the previous election. If you did not win any seats or you just registered a party, you must fund your own campaigns until you start winning seats.
The Electoral Commission can be charged with working out details of the system for state funding of political campaigns.
Writer's e-mail: [email protected]
