We have been struggling with the situation where we see our Presidents as being too powerful and domineering but we seem not to know what to do to contain them when they decide to use the powers conferred on them by the Constitution.
We are now in the political campaign period for election. The President is campaigning for the votes of Ghanaians just as every other politician. But he is also the sitting President. What it means, therefore, is that if at any moment the programme of any other party coincides with that of the President that, in Shakespeare’s language, must of force give way.Â
In that way, a troublesome President could always plan his programmes such as to disrupt the programmes of those parties he considered as a threat. What I mean is that because the President will always have a priority, he can change his programmes to coincide with that of a key competitor in an area that he otherwise considers to be favourable to the other parties.
Where there is always accusations of abuse of incumbency, this is no too far-fetched. It is, therefore, appropriate that we come out with clearly established timetables for election campaigns such that during those periods, the President would be seen more as a rival candidate than as the first gentleman of the country. When that happens, national resources would be equally or equitably distributed to cover all potential candidates.
One other thing is that as of now there are no candidates since the Electoral Commission (EC) has not opened nominations. Yet, we cannot pretend as we do with the district level elections where candidates campaign openly in the name of parties under a supposed non-partisan process.Â
We must even be happy that at long last, the President has openly come out about embarking on electioneering. Not too long ago, the President embarked upon a ‘Thank You’ tour which some described as a disguised campaign programme but which was presented as a national issue embarked upon legitimately by the President to account to the people about his stewardship.
The President remains the President and therefore his security would be a priority. In that sense if the President is touring a place, the priority of the security personnel is the safety and security of the President before all others because if anything untoward befalls the President, we all would suffer the consequence.Â
In some jurisdictions, where clear timelines are set for political party campaigns, the President is not treated differently from other candidates as to who must have the right to hold what meeting at what time. We cannot say the same. We have had instances where other candidates have been forced to cancel their programmes because the President was due to be around.
In the recent past, such things have not been rampant. But in the absence of clearly defined periods for campaigns, there is the likelihood that one candidate might have to suffer an injustice because the President, at short notice, as he can choose to go to any part of the country as he deems fit, has decided to travel across a region where the other candidate had duly notified the police and been given the green light to go ahead, but would have to suspend his programme.
It is, thus, not too late to come out with clear regulations as to the period within which campaigns are to be conducted. In that case, all candidates would have to confine themselves to that period, including the President, to give meaning to the constitutional provision that we are all equal before the law.
It has also become imperative that the political party’s law is allowed to work such that the EC would have to monitor the expenditure of the parties as they canvass for the votes of our people. Reports that our major political parties use subterfuge and subtle means to influence the voter with material inducements do not do us any good. It is even worse when public resources are applied to woo voters. Such inducements compel the electorate to follow a particular party because it has the advantage of incumbency.
The time has come for more transparency to be introduced into our politics so that the will of the people will prevail rather than the use of money to buy votes. That corrupts democracy and takes away from the people their inalienable rights to determine to genuinely and sincerely determine who governs them.Â
We must know that when we elect people into office, we do not enter into any contract with them to govern us beyond the constitutionally mandated period of four years. It is us the people who have to determine whether they must be given another term but not through underhand dealings.