The intense debate between partisans of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) over appointments to independent constitutional bodies has become a feature of our democracy.
For those in opposition, it serves as a basis for deepening their mistrust of the institution.
For those in power, it is simply a matter of the appointing authority exercising a constitutional prerogative.
In the end, we move on without changing the rules that make this cycle inevitable.
The latest appointments to the Electoral Commission by President John Mahama, particularly in the case of Emelia Affi Agbenyo, have sparked controversy.
It also comes at a time when there is a crisis of confidence in the EC.
In the most recent Afrobarometer survey (Round 10, 2024), only one out of 10 (12 per cent) Ghanaians expressed a lot of trust in the EC. By party affiliation, more self-described NPP partisans (30 per cent) expressed a lot of trust in the EC than self-described NDC partisans (four per cent).
Here is my five-point reflection on the matter.
Reflecting on the appointment
First, the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo test. Former President Nana Akufo-Addo, in 2023, argued that persons appointed to such institutions must be evaluated against four criteria: integrity, professionalism, fairness and independence of mind. In my view, this is a good test because it does not ask whether a nominee has ever voted or belongs to the NDC or the NPP.
It asks how the person will behave when entrusted with such a responsibility.
The question naturally then is this – does a partisan by default fail this test? The judgement appears to suggest so. Which leads to my second point.
Second, the open partisan and the private partisan.
There is an understandable discomfort Ghanaians feel when an openly partisan person is appointed to an independent institution.
This is partly because partisanship has acquired a bad name in our politics and the partisan is seen only as loyal to their party.
The discomfort, though, assumes that the person who hides their partisanship is safe.
But is that always the case?
In my view, private partisans can do the same damage we fear from an open partisan.
Nonetheless, for an institution facing a crisis of confidence, I support the assertion that an open partisan should not have been the answer if there is a genuine desire to improve the public image of the EC.
Suspicion
Third, the lingering suspicion.
I often wonder how our two main parties arrived at a place of this deep suspicion where, in their public pronouncements, they treat the EC as the decider of elections, as though victory or defeat rests on what the commission does or fails to do, rather than on what voters do based on whether parties have done enough to earn their trust.
We have had decades of reforms: the transparent ballot box, the biometric register, the collation and declaration processes, the party agents at every stage.
Yet, with each electoral cycle, the doubts persist and every new appointment reopens the debate about these suspicions.
Fourth, the recycling of outrage.
Then there is the moral outrage. In opposition, there is virtue in institutional neutrality.
In power, the key test is whether an appointee is a competent Ghanaian or not.
These grievances are regularly recycled after electoral turnovers.
I am not convinced that the outrage of today’s minority guarantees us different behaviour from tomorrow’s majority.
A good friend put the cynical conclusion to me bluntly: the lesson is to pack independent bodies with your own partisans.
If this becomes our guiding principle, then our independent institutions have a bleak future.
Fifth, how long can this go on? Both have held power.
Both have been in opposition and have complained about the behaviour of ruling parties. Ironically, there have been no real attempts to change the rules of the game and the structure of incentives by either side.
In the end, voters end up trusting less and those who get appointed begin their work under a cloud of suspicion.
Is this going to be a game in perpetuity for two main parties?
The opportunity we lost
The country had an opportunity to address this.
The Constitution Review Committee looked at this very problem and made strong recommendations on the appointment process to the Electoral Commission.
In my view, it had the potential to reduce the political angst that comes with these appointments.
Government rejected it and will, therefore, not be part of the next phase of the constitutional review process.
With this lost opportunity, it simply means that in a few years, after another electoral turnover and a new appointment, we will be back here again, arguing over this very same issue.
Unless, by some miracle, our two main political parties finally pledge to stop this vicious cycle.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project.
