Is time the enemy of Ghana’s development?

TIME VS. PERFORMANCE: Rethinking democracy and development in Ghana

In Ghana, and indeed across much of Africa, democracy has long been equated with the regular conduct of elections. Every four years, citizens line up at polling stations, driven by hope, loyalty, or frustration, to elect new leaders. This exercise is typically lauded as evidence of democratic maturity. Yet, after nearly three decades of multiparty democracy, the question must be asked: Are these regular elections truly advancing national development, or are they quietly undermining it?

While Ghana is widely regarded as one of the most stable democracies in Africa, there is growing concern that the very mechanisms meant to safeguard democracy, particularly cyclical elections, are impeding our ability to implement and sustain meaningful developmental progress. In essence, has time, as dictated by electoral cycles, become the enemy of performance?

The Case for Political Continuity.

Across the globe, examples abound where long-term leadership has delivered measurable and lasting development. Take China, where President Xi Jinping has been in power for over thirteen years. Under his leadership, China has advanced technologically, lifted millions out of poverty, and positioned itself as a global economic powerhouse. Importantly, this progress was not achieved within a single electoral cycle; it was the result of consistent governance, strategic continuity, and long-term national planning.

Similarly, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, who has dominated Russian politics for more than two decades, has overseen significant developments in energy independence, military modernisation, and national infrastructure. Although opinions are sharply divided on his methods, one cannot ignore the benefits that political stability and a long-term strategic outlook have brought to key sectors of Russian society.

In both nations, time and continuity have been critical enablers of national transformation. Leaders have had the space to implement reforms, adjust policies, and learn from their own governance experiences without the constant distraction of campaigning for re-election or facing premature leadership transitions.

Ghana’s Contrasting Reality.

In contrast, Ghana’s political structure is built on a strict four-year electoral cycle, often extended to eight years only if the incumbent party secures a second term. This timeframe is considerably short, particularly for leaders tasked with reversing entrenched socio-economic challenges and building resilient institutions. Most Ghanaian presidents spend their first year setting up governance structures, the next two years pursuing flagship projects, and the final year defending their records ahead of the next election. This compresses governance into a race against time, rather than a thoughtful, paced developmental agenda.

Even when a leader is re-elected, the second term is often marked by political fatigue, reduced accountability, and in some cases, lame-duck status. Under such conditions, long-term national strategies are either abandoned or replaced by politically expedient programs aimed at consolidating party loyalty and legacy, not necessarily delivering sustainable development.

This reality breeds what I term “developmental short-termism”, a governance model that favours quick wins over deep reforms, media visibility over policy depth, and electioneering over execution. As a result, rather than voting based on a leader’s performance, Ghanaians often vote because “ne time aso” his or her time is up. In such a system, timekeeping becomes a higher democratic value than transformation.

Learning from Our History.

Ghana’s post-independence experience offers a powerful counter-narrative. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, our first President, governed with a long-term vision of transforming Ghana into a modern, industrialised state. His accomplishments from the construction of the Akosombo Dam and the Tema Motorway to the establishment of industrial plants and higher education institutions were not the products of a single four-year term. Rather, they were born out of stability, bold vision, and uninterrupted governance.

To this day, many of the country’s foundational assets in energy, transport, and education are traceable to Nkrumah’s era. This alone should cause us to reflect: if Ghana has yet to replicate such a transformational legacy in the multiparty era, could the reason be our excessive reliance on rigid electoral timelines that ignore the demands of real development?

The Pitfalls of Electoral Overreach.

Democracy must go beyond elections. The danger in Ghana and many African democracies is that we have elevated the ballot above the blueprint. The structure of our political system forces every administration to behave as if national transformation must occur within four years, or at most eight. This creates pressure for hasty policies, populist decisions, and visible, but shallow, projects designed more for votes than for impact.

This pressure is now being compounded by calls for constitutional reforms that propose, among others, the reduction of presidential powers and the election of Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs). While this may seem like a move towards deepening democracy and decentralisation, it may instead usher in another layer of election-focused governance, one where every unit of leadership, from the presidency down to the district level, is caught in perpetual campaign mode.

This reform risks undermining technocratic governance, as qualified but non-political professionals may be pushed out of public administration in favour of popular or partisan candidates. The unintended result? Even more emphasis on electoral victory and even less on institutional performance.

A Continental Pattern

This is not a uniquely Ghanaian dilemma. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, despite its authoritarian structure, provided universal healthcare, housing, and some of the highest living standards on the continent before its collapse. Tunisia, before the Arab Spring, had one of the most developed social systems in North Africa. While these regimes were not democratic by Western standards, they illustrate the importance of political stability and long-term planning in achieving development.

Their fall, ironically triggered by demands for democratic reforms, serves as a cautionary tale. Without stability, development is fragile. Democracy must be more than just frequent leadership changes; it must be about improving lives.

Time as a Developmental Asset.

It is therefore time to rethink how we measure the success of our democracy. If performance, not just periodicity, becomes our benchmark, we may find that stability is not the enemy of democracy, but its partner. We need not abandon elections, but we must reform how we view governance. Leaders who perform should not be removed simply because their time is up. Rather, there should be constitutional mechanisms to reward impactful governance with strategic continuity, while also providing checks and balances to prevent authoritarianism.

We must begin to ask ourselves the hard questions: