Political cost of electoral turnovers

Ghana’s democracy has experienced four electoral turnovers (2000, 2008, 2016, 2024).

In principle, this is a good thing. Democracy scholars argue that one turnover election is a sign of democratic consolidation.

Therefore, Ghana’s electoral trajectory since 1992 is a sign of a maturing democracy, even though we face some challenges.

Ghanaians support turnover elections. In Afrobarometer Round 9 (2022), seven out of 10 (69 per cent) agreed that “it is better if power sometimes changes hands in elections from one political party to another”.

The sentiment remained high (62 per cent) in Afrobarometer Round 10 (2024). 

Dilemma

But recently, I read something on social media in which a politically active citizen shared an experience where they pointed to the professional cost of publicly associating with a political party.

In the comment section, another person shared a similar experience in which the 2024 turnover election has come at a political cost for their professional career.

Before you are quick to say that this is what happens when elections result in party turnover, let me acknowledge my familiarity with this cycle.

After all, I can recall many stories from the public square of transfers, contracts abrogated, scholarships paused, etc., when our elections have turned over.

The more I observe the cycle, the more I walk away thinking we have come to embrace this cycle as an acceptable consequence of our electoral democracy.

However, after four electoral turnovers and still observing this phenomenon, I am tempted to ask if it is worth our sober reflection, whether we want to make this a permanent feature of our electoral democracy or bring an end to it.

Surely, the answer to this reflection will have to be a collective one, in which our political elites from the two main political parties build some consensus around, with the support of the public, including their partisan supporters.

Pause and reflect?

I have come to realise that in our politics, once a certain practice is started or continued by one political party when in power, it becomes morally acceptable for the next party to travel the same path when in power.

I call it “precedent set means precedent must be followed.”

But there are three key reasons why we must pause and reflect, especially at a time when President John Mahama has framed the consequences of the 2024 electoral turnover as an opportunity for Ghana to reset and chart a new path.

I think of the reset as also constituting a moment of sober reflection where we begin to confront status quo practices that are not serving us well.

Why must we pause and reflect?

First, the disruption to the professional career trajectory of those (not political appointees) who suffer politically because of a turnover election must give us pause.

I will not hold brief for a professional in the public or civil service who politicises their role and treats fellow professionals in the workplace based on their partisan affiliation.

The public service code of conduct even prohibits such conduct.

I am nonetheless of the opinion that electoral turnovers must not become the basis for disruption.

If the professional must experience a change, it must be done in a manner that does not raise any suspicion of political motive and can stand the test of time when subjected to strict proof.

Second, and related to the above, is the disruption to the educational trajectory of those who have been relying on the benevolence of the State to finance their education, whether at home or abroad.

Again, if people obtained such state benevolence under questionable circumstances, I support accountability and administrative remedies.

But decision makers must exercise caution and guard against the administrative treatment of all cases of state benevolence as politically tainted. 

Third, the combined effect of the two reasons above is the consequence for our institutions.

The loss of institutional memory, the hesitation to make certain professional decisions because of future political consequences, etc., is not the way countries build strong institutions. In addition, institutions and key professional roles cannot remain at the mercy of turnover elections.

At a time when our institutions face a twin crisis of low trust and high perceptions of corruption, as captured in 10 rounds of surveys by Afrobarometer means only one thing: the absence of strong institutions can only mean poor governance outcomes.

Concluding thought

Let me conclude with this: There are certain administrative changes after an electoral turnover that I do not oppose.

For example, I do not expect a newly elected president to keep the ministers and deputy ministers of an outgoing government.

I am simply asking for a collective reflection on how far within our governance system we want to permeate and trigger professional changes just because there has been a turnover election.

The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project