Has The 1992 Constitution Driven Democracy In Ghana To Parliamentary “Dogs”, Rather Than To The Ordinary Men On Our Streets?

By Otchere Darko

[*Readers who are not sure about this writer and get confused about his name and identity may please read the information placed at the bottom of this article.]

Re: “Parliament: It's Now 251 Seats!” [Ghanaweb, General News of Wednesday, 21 September 2011;Source: Chronicle]

Abraham Lincoln described democracy simply as “government of the people by the people for the people”. As at the time Lincoln came out with this simplified definition, many older forms of democracies had all begun to give way to modern representative democracy, through which small sections of people in countries or communities are chosen to take decisions and actions that affect their larger populations. These older forms that had given way included the “Athenian democracy”, through which all citizens of ancient Athens directly participated in taking decisions and actions that affected their city; and our own “traditional African democracy” that was practised in many Ghanaian traditional communities before colonisation, and which entailed traditional community rulers, assisted by clan leaders and elders, taking decisions and actions that affected entire traditional communities. On the basis of the then newly evolving representative democracy, Lincoln’s definition set out and established three clear features which modern democracies were supposed to encompass, and which were that: there should be (1) representatives of the people; (2) chosen by the people [themselves]; (3) for the sake of seeking the interests of the people [that chose them]. These three features that formed the basis of the “Lincolnic definition” have collectively become the acid test for modern democracy. Thus, one cannot justifiably say there is modern democracy in any country, unless he can prove that these three features exist in the system of governance of the country concerned.

We can say with surety that Ghana’s system of governance, at least at central government level, incorporates two of Lincoln’s three prerequisites. These two, in my view, are: the presence of (1) “representatives of the people” and (2) “chosen by the people”. *What causes our system to fail the acid test for modern democracy is that: the representatives chosen by the people of Ghana NEVER seek the interests of ordinary Ghanaians that choose them. Our Presidents, their Vices, their Ministers and their other appointees, as well as Members of Parliament, always seek their own interests. They give themselves super-sumptuous remunerations, relative to the small earnings of ordinary Ghanaians. They pay themselves very high “End of Service” Benefits every four years that Parliament goes to the country, with all Presidents that serve eight years retiring on their full salaries for life, in addition to other benefits that include official cars and houses. Further to their regular salaries and other entitlements, these elected representatives of the people and their appointees draw fat “per-diems” every time they travel to do part of the work for which they are chosen or appointed. They are also surrounded by platoons of security personnel everywhere they are, and wherever they travel to, while armed robbers constantly hold ordinary Ghanaians to ransom in their houses when they sleep, and on roads when they travel. Can we call this true democracy? No.

If the people we elect to represent us do not seek our interests and are making fools of us, why do we have to increase their numbers? Have we Ghanaians not suffered enough with the 230 self-seeking MPs that we have? If we have suffered, and are still suffering with 230 self-seeking MPs, why do we have to add more to that number? Is it because article 47(5) of the 1992 Constitution mandates the EC to review the number of constituencies after every census, etc? Certainly, Article 47(5) places a duty on the EC to review constituencies every seven years, or within twelve months after census figures have been published, whichever comes first. However, the clause does not specifically ask the EC to increase or decrease the number of constituencies. Review can take different, and in fact other forms. *As a matter of fact, examining the constituencies that exist already and coming to a conclusion not to change anything constitutes a “review”. *Article 47 does say anything contrary to this presumption.

Clauses (1), (2), (3) and (7) of Article 47 give guidance as to how any division of Ghana into constituencies may proceed. Clause one says there should be one MP to one constituency. Clause two says no constituency must fall within two regions. Clause three says “the boundaries of each constituency shall be such that the number of inhabitants in the constituency is, as nearly as possible, equal to the population quota”...... with clause seven defining population quota as “the number obtained by dividing the number of inhabitants of Ghana by the number constituencies into which Ghana is divided under this article”. *The weakness of the duty to “review the division of Ghana into constituencies”, which is placed on the EC by Article 47(5), is its failure to give the “base population quota” ...... by which I mean the number of constituencies existing in a particular given year, which is based on the population of Ghana at that particular year, and from which subsequent reviews should be made. Around the time of Ghana’s independence, the whole country had been divided into 104 constituencies. Around that same period, Ghana’s population was about 7 million. Based on the definition in Article 47(7), this information gives a “population quota”, of approximately 67,300 inhabitants to a constituency. Ghana’s population since then has risen to between three and four times the pre-independence figure. Similarly, the number of constituencies have varied from time to time during this same period of Ghana’s democratic history. So, what was the “base population quota” upon which the EC determined the number of constituencies for the 1992 General and Presidential elections that were organised in accordance with Article 47 of the 1992 Constitution, and from which subsequent reviews have been, and will continue to be made, based on Article 47(5)? In the exercise of the various mandates granted it by Article 47 of the constitution, the EC ought to act with due consideration of factors that go beyond published census “enumeration figures”. In my view, it is for this reason that Article 47(4) was put in..... to give the EC some leeway in deciding how prudently it can, and must exercise its duty under Article 47, without harmful constitutional constraints.

The United Kingdom, our “colonial” mentors, have 650 constituencies; and they are going, or planning to cut this down to about 500..... slashing the number of MPs by a whopping 150. The population of UK has not gone down, though; nor is it expected to go down. UK understands that democracy in a country is not based on the number of MPs or constituencies the country has. It depends on the democratic efficiency of the government and the people in the country. *My father once told me that the reason why Africans [and for that matter Ghanaians] are poor and keep suffering every time is because “we allow our mouths to grow bigger than our hands”. “We create more ‘choppers’ than ‘workers’”, put otherwise. *MPs must prove their worth to ordinary Ghanaians who put them where they are, before it will make sense to increase their numbers. Our elders say in a Ghanaian proverb: “se nguan a woko adidi mbae a, yennsane fofro ngu mu”; which, very literally translated, means: “you must not release more sheep to go outside to graze, when those released earlier fail to return”.

Let NOT the EC create more MPs in Ghana. The 230 that are already serving have become financially burdensome on the nation’s coffers, in the light of the numerous competing needs of Ghana at our current stage of development, and also when MPs’ costs are measured in relation to the benefits ordinary Ghanaians derive from them. Besides, a vast increase in net immigration, as it has happened in Ghana lately, can lead to an increase in the number of inhabitants in a country. Such increase can affect the “population quota”, as defined by Article 47(7); but that need not be a basis to create more constituencies. Law interpretation and implementation, including those of Article 47, must always be done with due circumspection. At a time when some richer nations are trying to reduce the number of MPs they have, to meet current public expenditure dynamics, let NOT Ghana increase its MPs and create the impression that our leaders do not know that there are better ways to spend this nation’s public money, a large part of which is always borrowed.

Source: Otchere Darko; [Personal Political Views].

*About the Author:

[This appendage is for the information of only readers who get confused about this particular writer because of the name he uses, and who therefore need to know more about him or about the name he uses. Ignore this appendage, if you are not one of such readers. *This writer is just one of hundreds, and possibly thousands of Ghanaians who use the name “Otchere Darko”, either on its own, or in combination with other names. Some users spell this same name as “Okyere Darko”, while other users conjoin it with the help of a hyphen to become one single compound name, “Otchere-Darko” or “Okyere-Darko”, depending on which spelling-mode they choose. This writer, who has officially used this ‘simple name’ from his school days in the sixties into the seventies and continues to use it officially to this very day, attended the School of Administration of University of Ghana where he finally left in September 1977, the year that students embarked on the “UNIGOV” demonstration. He has never before, or after September 1977 been a student of the Ghana Law School. Up to the end of 1981, he worked as a senior public servant in, and for one of the mainstream Ministries in Ghana. He is not working for, and has never worked at the Danquah Institute. He is currently also not a member of NPP, or of any other party in Ghana. He is not related to any practising Ghanaian politician who uses this same or other name. *May readers concerned, please, take note of this exhaustive clarification and stop drawing wrong conclusions that sometimes lead them to attack a wrong person. Thank you for taking note.