There are those in Ghana who see democracy as part of God’s creation or perhaps something found in the Holy Bible if they’re Christians or found in some chapters in the Holy Quran if they’re Muslims. Some even behave as if Democracy is actually part of the first book in the Holy Bible, as if Genesis 1-1 reads: In the beginning God created the Heavens and Democracy.

While we cannot entirely blame Ghanaians for their obsession with Democracy, there is no excuse for one’s failure or inability to understand that Democracy is simply an idea or a system of government proposed by an individual and NOT a fixed natural human survival mechanism.

Inasmuch as democracy in its very essence is strange and alien to any African culture, it’s also scientifically proven to be unnatural and counter-intuitive. It is true and factual that Western appurtenances are universally attractive and prominent. However, the ideological contradictions somewhat synchronise Western democracy and capitalism, making it appear seemingly impossible to function under a socialist society.

In ancient Africa, such as the Kingdom of Kush (Nubia), the maritime Aksumite Empire, like the Ghana Empire, Mali, and Great Zimbabwe, no element or trace of democracy that some Ghanaians find impossible to survive without ever existed. Democracy is not scientific, and imperial Britain and the United States know that it is the only political system or the system of governance which easily opens up a sovereign state for foreign interference. The practice of democracy in ancient Greece emerged as a revolutionary means to take power from the aristocrats. In this paper, I intend to bring democracy in its naked form and present to you why democracy is a complete disconnect from the sociocultural settings of Ghanaians and sub-Saharan Africa, for that matter.

When democracy was first introduced by Cleisthenes in Athens around 502 BC, several great thinkers like Aristotle, Plato and his teacher Socrates understood the genetic formation of democracy and its possible process of evolution perhaps thousands of years into the future. As Ghanaians or Africans, democracy came to us as a solution in its rawest form primarily as colonial subjects, whose education system and curriculum had been deliberately carved to suit the needs of the colonialists and strengthen their hold on their subjects. The imperialists are also fully aware that apart from liberal democracy coupled with unguided capitalism, they risk losing hold of their former colonies completely. For twenty years of subjecting socialism and communism under strict scrutiny, it became clear that the colonial occupiers needed all their former colonies to adopt democracy to enable them to maintain influence on their former colonies.

Plato is one of the major critics of democracy. In his book The Republic, Plato described democracy as mob rule, led by demagogues rather than experts or the wise.

Plato strongly criticised democracy, viewing it as a chaotic exhibition of utter foolishness. In his Republic, again, Plato argued that democracy prioritises excessive freedom and equality over wisdom, which inevitably deteriorate into tyranny and a false feeling of entitlement. Like most political philosophers/thinkers, Plato believed that the responsibility to rule a country requires specialised skill or talent or even some training, without which democracy becomes a flawed system prone to foolishness and irrational decision-making.

The Ship of Fools, which is one of Plato’s most popular analogies, compares democracy to a ship where the crew (the ruled or citizens) fights for control of the ship even though none have any knowledge of sea navigation and ignore the captain, who is the expert navigator. (The philosopher) and the ship ultimately ends in wreckage or in a chaotic voyage. Like his teacher Socrates, Plato in his book Republic also saw democracy to be Mob Rule and believed that democracy enables charismatic but unqualified individuals to attain political leadership and manipulate the emotions of the public.

Plato argued that excessive liberty provided by democracy leads to disorder, creating a demand for a "champion" or protector who eventually turns into a tyrant. He continued that one of the biggest flaws of democracy is that it treats all opinions equally, including foolishness and ignores the need for specialised knowledge, wisdom and education required in governance. Plato favoured a meritocratic state ruled by "philosopher kings," who possess wisdom and virtue.

It is commonly known among those interested in this field of study that Plato's critique was heavily influenced by the death of his teacher, Socrates, who was executed by the Athenian democracy, reinforcing his belief that democratic systems are flawed.

Before Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to death in Athens for condemning Democracy in 399BC, Socrates had a casual conversation with Adeimantus, where Socrates tried to get Adeimantus to see the flaws in democracy and, like Plato, compared it with a ship. He asked Adeimantus, should you choose to travel by sea, would you rather just pick any member of the public to navigate the ship on the high seas or would you choose an expert who understands what seafaring means?

Friedrich Nietzsche, one of Germany’s greatest philosophers of all time, despised democracy and described it as a symptom of herd morality and mediocrity. Nietzsche believed democracy would ultimately elevate the average man while suppressing the exceptional individual (the Übermensch).

Democracy as Postcolonial Inheritance

It is crucial to understand that political independence is won through political struggle, but economic independence is achieved over a period of time after political independence through continuous structural reforms. None of these is given to the colonised on a silver platter. As the late former interior minister under Kwame Nkrumah, Krobo Adusei, once said, “they give you independence with one hand and try to take it back with the other. It is the primary policy objective of the colonialists or the so-called “Colonial Master” to ensure that the once dependent territory does not adopt any other political ideology or revolutionary movement that threatens their continuous hold on their former colonial territories; hence democracy MUST be the only option.

Democracy and Capitalism

While Capitalism is generally considered to provide economic freedom and an instrument for wealth generation, its efficacy is completely dependent on the sociocultural settings of the citizens and how the people are culturally able to take advantage of all the opportunities capitalism provides or creates. Capitalism is globally known as most notorious for promoting social instability and creating dangerous inequality, but it appears to work well together with democracy as it’s known to be mutually reinforcing.

In sub-Saharan Africa, democracy and all its attributes contradict the cultural heritage and historically established system of authority in all past ancient African Empires. It is also a commonly known fact that the susceptibility of most African states to Western interference and influences is caused by democracy.

Democracy in its rawest form simply recognises no individual brilliance and considers that the means of selecting leadership, however sensitive, should be by elections by those with very little or no idea how to make choices in their own interest, leaving meritocracy with no chance to thrive.

This does not necessarily mean that any form of government apart from democracy is better. The purpose of this article is to highlight the weaknesses of the kind of democracy practised here in Africa and how its intended purpose has been counterproductive so far. As stated above, the West used propaganda to demonise socialism or communism to Africans for fear and the risk of losing their former territories, including all the free resources that come with it forever.

With full knowledge that any form of socialism, either Scientific Socialism (Nkrumaism) or the raw Marxist method of collective prosperity, would entirely crumble Western Imperialism, the West devised a multibillion-dollar all-out comprehensive propaganda strategy worldwide to all colonies and former colonies to make certain that all running and former colonies accept democracy coupled with unguided capitalism if they are to remain relevant.

Unscientific Nation Building

Since the overthrow of Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah in 1966, there has been no purposive laid out national development plan or strategy either in education, health, industrial development, construction, sports, culture, public housing, science and technology and agriculture. National development policies and strategies witnessed are mostly haphazard, unscientific and barely deeply rooted, especially since 1992 when the country embarked on a constitutional democracy.

Even under the military dictatorship, although it lacked purpose and vision while economic progress was sluggish, extreme grabbing and state capture were at their barest minimum compared to this era of democracy where state resources are abused and misused with impunity.

Nations do not develop by chance. And successful economic transformation does not occur by wishes. Great nations are built by men of thought and action through great sacrifices in order for succeeding generations to succeed and achieve prosperity and accomplishments. The greatest asset of a country is its citizens, and for a country to develop, it MUST create the right citizens through meaningful education, including instilling a sense of nationalism and citizens' state responsibility among all its nationals. Taking into consideration the very structure of unguided democracy as practised in Ghana with a four- or eight-year interchangeable nature, the crucial idea of developing its youth to be nationalistic and own the land as their birthright becomes gratuitous and obsolete.

Tragically, the country has no central policy plan either in industrial, agricultural, education, national spatial planning, production, technological advancement etc. given that all such foundations which were built in the 60s were foolishly dismantled systematically, no clear pathway for concerted national development strategy has been conceived yet our politicians continue to promise us development as if economic development can be achieved without clear ideological strategy/plan.

Democracy = Laissez-faire

One of the most treacherous attributes of democracy is not only its mortise and tenon union with unbridled capitalism but also what the French refer to as Laissez-faire, which literally means leave it alone or let it be. This perhaps is the most deceptive and destructive element in democratic governance, especially in most postcolonial countries worldwide except South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. The ultra-fine nature of laissez-faire in democracy makes it elusive to detect, as it is the most foolish and backward colonial inheritance among others. Even though not visibly spelt out in the typical textbook of democracy, it’s barely perceptible to be noticed, as some modern-day practitioners of democracy (today’s politicians) find it easy to conceal their lazy characters.

This seemingly obscured element of democracy discourages democratic governments from developing or implementing policies which will directly solve specific problems. In the case of Ghana, the old PNDC/NDC, not ideologically grounded, allowed the so-called UP Tradition (today’s NPP) to lead the narrative. The old NDC, lacking the confidence to challenge the NPP element, allowed it to freely and repeatedly pump false phrases and misconceptions like “government have no business doing business”, "government must create the enabling environment”, and the “private sector is the engine of growth” into the minds of Ghanaians. As if they can point to a single post-colonial country which have developed without the state being at the centre of it. Till today, this nonsense which was sewn into the mental fabric of Ghanaians with the characteristics of Laissez-Faire in the early 1990s continues to form the basis of our economic policy formulation and public security and investment strategies.

Land Management

Again, another subtly self-destructive nature of Laissez-Faire in democracy, which separates the politician from their immediate responsibilities and leaves things as they are so long as it’s not directly killing anybody, is what has brought us into this embarrassing and chaotic state of land usage and management. After President Nkrumah was overthrown in 1966, Busia, for his lack of understanding of how things work, systematically returned all lands which had been legally acquired by Nkrumah for the state for planning and development to the chiefs.

Considering that some chiefs in Ghana were put on a fixed monthly salary to prevent them from haphazardly selling their lands, this did not stop Prime Minister Busia from returning these state-acquired lands, which had been earmarked for industrial parks, housing, factories, security zones, etc., back to the chiefs just to spite Nkrumah and support their argument that he was a dictator. Now, due to the inability of successive governments to acquire lands for long-term planning purposes, including housing, Ghanaians of all economic standings must seek to buy land from chiefs and other land owners before they can obtain a home for themselves and their families.

The lack of successive governments' aggressive intervention to provide housing for Ghanaians again,n as a result of this same Laissez-Faire attitude, has led to governments feeling it’s not part of their responsibility to ensure all Ghanaians have access to dignified shelter.

My fellow citizens of Ghana, a city the size of Accra with a population of less than 20 million should never have a problem with space. The continuous lack of planning and successive governments' laissez-faire attitude towards land acquisition and official planning is the cause of this early shortage of land in Accra. Apart from Tema, which is the only properly planned township within the Greater Accra region, anywhere else was planned by local chiefs with their private surveyors. Systemically, all parks and play areas we saw growing up in the 80s and 90s have slowly disappeared. How can a serious country have such land management policies in existence in the 21st century? Most communities have no parks or play areas for kids because the chiefs and some land guards have sold them to the highest bidder while the local authorities sit aloof and watch helplessly.

Job Creation and Economic Development

This perhaps is the most sickening part of the severe lack of understanding by the so-called UP Tradition’s false narrative of democratic governance and capitalism. The thought that the average politician in Ghana thinks that he or she is not directly responsible for providing jobs for its citizens but a foreigner whom nobody knows who he is or where he will come from. Therefore, the livelihoods of our fellow citizens, especially our youth, rest in the hands of the Americans, Europeans, Lebanese or Indians. This was the propaganda started in the 60s by the West against Nkrumah’s industrialisation experiment. The fact is, by 1966, very little or no finished product was being imported into this country. Even vehicles such as fuel tankers and some buses were being assembled in Ghana.

Even today in 2026, we continue to follow this backward and frivolous economic theory which was forced on us by the colonialists to serve their interest and which was also unfortunately supported by some of our own unpatriotic citizens who didn’t know any better; we still allow it to further impoverish our people.

It is the thought that our politicians find comfort in this foolish way of thinking, which proposes that men like us should sit and wait for a Lebanese or Indian or anybody else to come from his country to set up a company for our youths to gain employment that makes me sick. Sadly, our education system after the overthrow of Nkrumah, which also abolished youth nationalism and patriotism programmes like Young Pioneers, supports this belief of having our fate in the hands of the foreign investor whom we know nothing about and, in most cases, comes only to exploit and take advantage of us and our weak institutions. That spirit of self-determination instilled in us by Nkrumah has been systematically eroded to the extent that most of our politicians do not actually think we are capable of achieving anything better…eg the sale of Ghana Telecom to Vodafone etc.

It is said that a country with no self-determination spirit leaves the fate of its citizens in the hands of foreigners, and all these are made possible by this kind of democracy, given that selection of leadership is purely based on candidates presented by the political parties, however unscrupulous he or she may be.

Double Standards

It is only in democracy that such an idea of folly can flourish. While the West in the 1960s heavily and constantly criticised Kwame Nkrumah for using state resources to build industries, they themselves had built all their industries and infrastructure systems and networks using state resources, especially the UK and France. Over 87 per cent of housing in the UK was built by the government for their citizens, yet they criticised Ghana for doing the same and not allowing the indigenous private sector, which did not even exist in the 1950s, to carry out such tasks.

GNP and not GDP

While the world uses Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the universal tool for measuring economic growth, Ghana must rather focus on the use of Gross National Product (GNP) as its own method of measuring wealth among Ghanaians, as the global standard use of GDP can be and is misleading for Ghanaians or the African. The continued use of GDP gives a false sense of growth, or the kind of growth which isolates the Ghanaian or does not take into consideration the actual growth among the people of Ghana aspirations of the Ghanaian, in whose hands the sovereignty of our nation bestows

The case of the United Arab Emirates

Who would imagine such wild foolishness that the tremendous success of Dubai could’ve been achieved under some kind of democracy? Or the speed of the continuous infrastructural development within the Emirates could’ve been achieved through some kind of silly electoral processes to elect a president who himself does not understand how anything works? There is sufficient evidence that in Africa, sometimes, democracy only came to serve the lazy and provide opportunity for mindless individuals who should have nothing to do with politics or leadership of any form.

The case of China

Without a purposive leadership with communism as its political vehicle, how is it possible to have the China we have today in one piece? Liberal democracy coupled with unbridled capitalism would’ve dismantled this country into several different pieces with crime and chaos everywhere as its trump card. China today is clear evidence that capitalism, as has been portrayed by the West as the universal strategy for growth, is not only false but also provides physical and material evidence that political or ideological strategy MUST reflect the sociocultural structure of the intended society.