Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com
By
William Yaw Owusu
Friday, November 28, 2014
There was a heated but friendly debate at Alisa
Hotel yesterday on whether Ghana has a ‘Winner-Takes-All’ constitution.
The scholarly exposition was between Prof. H Kwasi
Prempeh, a constitutional law and governance expert who argued in favour of an
amendment of some aspects of the 1992 Constitution to curtail some of the
powers of the executive arm of government and Kofi Bentil, a lawyer and Vice President
of IMANI who pushed for a vibrant civil society that would force public office
holders to respect the tenets of ‘our workable’ constitution.
The forum moderated by Nana Yaa Ofori Atta, a
communications expert, was put together by IMANI Centre for Policy and
Education, a policy analysis think tank as part of its 10the anniversary
celebrations.
In the end, a slight majority of the audience came
into a consensus that Ghana indeed has a ‘Winner-Takes-All’ constitution with
the executive arm of government having overreaching powers that needed to be curtailed
to safeguard the country’s democracy.
Prof. Prempeh was the first to make submissions when
he said “the constitution is overly permissive and flawed,” adding “it is a
Winner-Takes-All Constitution.”
He said the constitution must always be interpreted
against a certain ‘context’ and ‘background’ advising “people should not read
the constitution as though you are a lawyer but rather as a politician looking
for opportunities to entrench himself in power.”
“The permissiveness of the constitution creates the
Winner-Takes-All situation that we have. The constitution can empower and
constrain at the same time.”
Prof. Prempeh said he has always been against the
idea of power-sharing saying “I believe that the party and the President
elected into office must be allowed to keep or select their own for positions
to execute their agenda.”
He said “the President under our constitution has
more powers that a good President needs and at the same time has more powers
that a bad President needs,” saying “all powers without restraint is a recipe
for disaster,” adding “when you allow a politician more powers the outcome is
predictable…he will use that power to further entrench his political agenda.”
Mr. Bentil disagreed with the Professor and said the
constitution could not be the cause of Ghana’s Winner-Takes-All problem but
rather Winner-Takes-All syndrome or mindset that could be traced to the
attitude of politicians.
“The constitution allows the President freedom to
take decisions. The same constitution urges the President to be all-inclusive
and if the President wants to do it he can easily do it.”
He said there are express provisions in the
constitution to cater for the country’s needs and there was no need to put
everything on paper saying “ if we have to put everything on paper we will be
locking down our system.”
“We have built a culture where our public office
holders are expected to do certain things. The constitution is not the problem
but the attitude of the public office holders to the constitution.”
Mr. Bentil said “the constitution does not determine
the attitude of politicians. Changing the constitution does not change the
attitude of public office holders. Civil society and the people have to rather
insist they do the right things.”
He said the institutions of state must rather be
empowered to checkmate one another and in that way the constitution will be
seen to be working well.
Felix Owusu Agyepong, former Majority leader in
Parliament shared Mr. Bentil’s view that the constitution is not ‘Winner-Takes-All’
but rather the attitude of the politicians that had brought Ghana to that
situation.
However, Dr. Kwesi Jonah of IDEG, Golda Addo an Advocate
of Renewable Energy Development for Ghana and Angela Dwamena Aboagye, a long
standing gender activist all agreed with Prof. Prempeh that the executive arm
of government was too powerful and there was the need for effective checks and
balances.
Still, there were other contributors who still
shared Mr. Bentil’s opinion that the talk of Winner-Takes-All was due to the
attitude of public office holders who needed to follow laid down rules to
ensure the sanctity of the constitution.