The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) has outlined its programme for Presidential Debates for this year's elections. The announcement has generated near universal furore amongst the targeted debaters.

There is total resentment against the notion of Premier League teams and Championship sides. This problem is compounded by the added complication that the presumptive Premiership teams have both threatened not to take part in the debates at all, never mind their being placed on a pedestal.

The IEA’s initiative has triggered a response from the National Council for Civic Education (NCCE) that it will organise its own Presidential Debate alongside its normal platforms for Parliamentary candidates. The NCCE suggestion has not gone down well with the IEA, which regards this as treading on the later’s hallowed turf; and that the NCCE should stick to educating voters on how they should make their ballot count.

The IEA is a private civil society organisation which has established a well-earned reputation as the foremost governance institution in Ghana (although I wish that excellence was in the subject of its name). Unfortunately, that record of accomplishment has gotten into its head in the way it has conducted itself in the current debate.

As a private institution, the IEA is free to decide what and how it will do its own thing, including Presidential debates or any other activities related to its mandate. The IEA is not a statutory constitutional body as the NCCE is. Therefore, any accusations of unconstitutionality, in the format of its proposed debate, are at best ingenuous, and at worst damn right ignorant...

But at the same time, it will be totally wrong for the IEA to claim exclusivity in the organisation of Presidential debates, or any other forms of voter education for that matter. Therefore the attempt to direct the NCCE, a body established under our laws to educate us on our civil responsibilities, to a particular form of voter education is wrong and misguided.

I also take issue with the IEA for not consulting the political parties and lively debate participants ahead of the announcement of its programme. Yes it was not obliged to, but it would have been polite if there had been prior consultations ahead of the public announcement. After all, the independent commission which organises Presidential Debates in America does so in consultation and full negotiations with the two main participants - the Democratic & the Republican Parties.

IEA's most effective contribution to the sustenance of democracy in Ghana’s 4th Republic has been the platform it has provided for inter-party interactions and dialogue aimed at consensus building.

Its landmark achievement so far has been in the evolution and passage of the revamped Transition Law that fosters a smooth transfer of power from the incumbent to the succeeding administration. Such a fine track record should have informed the format of this year’s debates.

Informed voter education is the bedrock and foundation pillars for Republican Democracy anchored on universal adult suffrage.

As Thomas Jefferson put it so succinctly “A well-Informed Electorate Is a Prerequisite for Democracy” amplified as “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion”

In a country where we practice universal adult suffrage and English is a language spoken and understood by a small minority of the people, it is arguable whether Presidential debates organised in that language can achieve the full effect of informing the discretion of the majority of Ghanaians.

Therefore, important and useful as they are, we should not overstate the importance of Presidential debate to deciding who will win Election 2016. Presidential Debates have a chequered history in Ghana. They started in 2000 under the aegis of the IEA and CNN provided the moderator.

I took part in that event, together with the Candidate J. A. Kuffuor, Dr. Edward Mahama, Goozie Tandoh, Dr George Hagan and Mr Dan Lartey. Dr. J.E.A. Mills of the NDC declined to take part, although and quite ironically he launched his own campaign in a 4 hour live TV event chaired by the founder of the IEA, Dr. Charles Mensa.

In 2004, J. A. Kuffuor, now fmr President, also boycotted the Presidential Debate. Thus it was only in 2008 that we were treated to the first Presidential debate to feature the candidates of the two main parties, namely NDC’s J.E.A. Mills and Nana Akufo-Addo. We were similarly blessed with the involvement of the candidates of the two main parties, Pres. John Mahama & Nana Akufo-Addo. This was the only debate in which an incumbent President running for re-election took part, although the event was unduly marred by the ‘whooping cough’ attacks on [one minor participant], a development which no doubt affected the proposed structure for this year’s debates.

By all means, let the IEA carry on with its flagship event called Presidential Debates. However, given the reaction so far from all its intended participants, the IEA must press the ‘reset’ button and go back to the drawing board and initiate the sort of consultations with the potential participants so they can come back to us to announce an agreed format and timetable.

And for the sake of the majority of Ghanaians living everywhere, who do not speak English but will also exercise their right to vote, let us welcome the opportunity offered by the NCCE to get involved in Presidential debates this year, I suggest they replay dubbed versions of the IEA debates into the main Ghanaian languages, as well as concentrate on their own established and very effective debates amongst Parliamentary candidates, conducted in the local dialects.

By all means, let Ghana’s electorate be very well informed to aid their choice at Election 2016. But let us jettison the notion that the winner of the Presidential debates will be the one crowned President in January 2017.