What can one seat do for Ghana’s politics? A lot, as it turns out. The recent Assin North bye-election has shown it isn’t just love that money can’t buy, as the Beatles sang – it can’t buy votes either. It has magnified Ghana’s political pitfalls, shattered the moneycracy myth, and catalyzed the need for change and reform in Ghana’s politics.
In this opinion piece, I argue that the Assin North bye-election has created the opportunity for us to move from the illusion of moneycracy to the reality of meritocracy in Ghana’s politics. After a brief situational analysis of electioneering campaigns in Ghana, I propose some innovative tools and strategies that could help transform Ghana’s politics from moneycracy to meritocracy. I conclude by calling on politicians and voters to embrace meritocratic ideals that will help transform Ghana’s politics for the better.
The money game in Ghana’s politics
Ghana is widely praised as a model of democracy in Africa, with peaceful and competitive elections since 1992. However, its democracy is also plagued by patronage, clientelism, and vote buying, especially in rural and poor areas. It is common for political parties and candidates to distribute money, food, clothes, bicycles, motorcycles, and even cars to voters during campaigns, hoping to secure their loyalty and support. This phenomenon has been termed as moneycracy in the Ghanaian parlance and some scholars have argued that it is a rational strategy for both voters and politicians, as it reflects the economic realities and social norms of Ghanaian society. Others have criticised it as corruption and manipulation that undermines democracy and development. I have a different opinion: I question its efficacy all together!
I think this strategy is no longer effective and does not ensure electoral victory, as voters take the bribes but still vote according to their conscience or preference. I believe that your money only reinforces their choice if you are already their preferred candidate, creating the illusion that the money made the difference. If they favour the other candidate, they will pocket your money but vote against you, making you think you were outbid.
This has created a causal ambiguity in election outcomes and candidates prefer to play it safe and keep paying. The same goes for hurried developmental projects that are launched before an election, except that they can backfire by creating a sense of insincerity and opportunism among the voters, who may doubt the intentions and dedication of the politicians behind them.
Whether or not it works, the act of vote buying undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the electoral process, as it violates the principle of free and fair elections and erodes public trust in democracy. Before proceeding any further into our discussion, it might be prudent to examine how we got here.
How did we get here?
How did we get here? Has our politics always been this way? My answer is No, it hasn’t. I will leave the analysis of Ghana’s political history to the experts and share my thoughts on how we might have gotten here.
Ghana’s political landscape has been shaped by two major parties since the inception of the Fourth Republic in 1992: the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP). These parties claim to have different ideological orientations: the NDC espouses social democracy, which emphasizes social justice and equality, while the NPP advocates liberal democracy, which emphasizes individual freedom and market economy. However, their policy goals and interests have often been influenced by factional alignments, group interests, and patronage.
In the early years of the Fourth Republic, vote buying wasn’t an issue, at least not as pervasive and palpable as we see it today. Some may argue that the largely illiterate voters did not appreciate the intricacies of political ideologies and as such were not ideological in their voting, but I beg to differ. Voting was largely along ideological lines (however they understood it) with a pinch of ethnicity, religion and how one viewed the June 4 revolution.
An ideology-based democracy, even if low resolution, is better than moneycracy. It allowed ordinary people such as primary school teachers and other respected opinion leaders in their communities to find their place in parliament. I remember my physics teacher contesting and winning a constituency somewhere in the Kwahu area in the 1996 elections.
But things changed over time. Our burgeoning democracy got stung by the money bug and our politics took on a certain business interest that allowed all sorts of opportunists to get a foothold in our politics. Business tycoons or their surrogates saw the opportunity to leverage political power, connections, and privileges for their business interests and this infiltrated the ranks of the two major political parties.
Those businessmen who could not get into politics themselves for one reason or another, sponsored their children and close relatives to be there. Perhaps, there might be MPs in our current parliament who are there in loco parentis.
How these business-interest politicians aligned had little to do with political ideology and everything to do with their business. Thus, in their choice of a party and constituency, they looked at the option that offered the quickest path to become an MP. They purchased their way into acceptance and electorates/delegates seemed to enjoy the new infusion of money into the campaign process.
They had suddenly become kingmakers in a lucrative enterprise! With moneycracy fully in place by the 2000s, ill-resourced MPs and aspirants now had to find ways to match their wealthier, and not necessarily better qualified, opponents. Many ordinary citizens such as academics, civil and public servants, various professionals, and private practitioners with political ambitions, ruined their families and careers by trying to survive in a moneycratic political environment.
They contracted loans they couldn’t repay, diverted their family income into elections and campaigns, and suffered a great loss for not having enough to compete. Their stories were often tragic, and these has made elections a life and death issue for many. It was no wonder President Akuffo Addo’s 2011 “all die be die” and President John Mahama’s 2020 “do or die” comments were all made in opposition. Losing an election became an existential crisis!
So, friends, this is how we ended up in this situation. The moneycracy that dominates our politics now obviously has a business model. We all know what it is and are fully aware of its consequences. But we have come full circle. The voters have seen through the rigged system and the poor leadership. They take the money from both sides, but vote for their preferred candidate, not the highest bidder. Recent elections, like Kumawu and Assin North, prove this. But the candidates are still stuck with a failing game plan. They need to learn their lessons and change their playbook.
The Assin North bye-election: a game-changer
This political event has shown that money is not the magic bullet for winning elections. The by-election was triggered by a Supreme Court ruling that disqualified James Gyaakye Quayson, the former MP for Assin North, for holding dual citizenship at the time of filing his nomination in 2020. Characteristic of by-elections in Ghana, political actors in the country descended on Assin North to haggle, scheme, propagandise, and become all things to all people to win some votes.
The contest was intense because both the NDC and NPP considered the seat winnable. But of course, in the auction for votes, the party in government always has the upper hand. According to reports and videos making the rounds on social media, voters took money and other goodies from both parties and candidates, but they did not let that influence their voting. Despite being the highest bidder, the NPP candidate lost by close to 5,000 votes to his NDC rival.
This suggests that voters were motivated by other factors, such as party loyalty, personal charisma, local issues, or protest votes. We witnessed a similar trend in Kumawu. Yes! All forms of inducements happened in Kumawu, but we cannot credit the victory to those; the NPP candidate would have won anyway. We seem to underestimate the sophistication of the Ghanaian voter – they are discerning and independent in their choices, and money and rushed developmental projects are not enough to secure their genuine support. Some candidates use spiritual threats to secure their votes.
They make voters swear by various gods that they will keep their promises. But voters are not scared of these gods anymore, even if they are known to be unforgiving when wronged. Voters think that these candidates are corrupt and have stolen the money and gifts they offer. So, voters feel justified to take them and enjoy their share of the proverbial national pie that has perpetually remained in the sky for them.
So where do we go from here? What is the legacy of this Assin North by-election? It has two major implications for Ghana’s politics. First, it has exposed the futility and wastefulness of vote buying and rushed development as strategies for winning elections. These practices do not guarantee electoral success and only undermine the quality and integrity of the democratic process.
Second, it challenges our politicians to adopt more genuine and sustainable ways of engaging with the electorate, such as listening to their needs and concerns, offering realistic and relevant solutions, building trust and rapport, and delivering on their promises. Contrary to popular beliefs, Ghanaian voters are not easily swayed by money or gifts, but by the perceived credibility and competence of the candidates.
This by-election has thus raised the bar for political competition and participation in Ghana and opened a window of opportunity for us to move from moneycracy to meritocracy. The question is: Will we yield to the nudges? Will we seize the moment and transform our politics? And who will lead and guide this process?
From moneycracy to meritocracy: who or what will show us the way?
This op-ed is about one constituency, but it has broader implications for Ghana’s democracy. Let me stir up a national storm in the Assin North teacup. Maybe, the storm in Assin North will produce waves that will set the nation on a journey that will transform our politics for the better. This journey is the migration from moneycracy to meritocracy. It is a journey that will take us past many signposts — indicators that show that we are on the right path. The starting point of this migration is the place where we value and promote issue-based campaigns and policy debates.
Here, our politics become a contest of ideas and politicians engage in constructive debates and dialogues on how to address the pressing challenges facing the nation. As we press on this path, we should come to a point where we cherish a culture of merit and integrity in our politics. Here, our politics will reward competence, character, and commitment, rather than wealth, generosity, or connections.
We will also see the emergence of heightened voter-consciousness that leads voters to hold themselves accountable for their choices, and act in the best interest of the nation, rather than their personal or partisan interests. We know we have arrived when we get past insincere debates, empty speeches, and spin doctors to a place where we are not easily swayed by rhetoric or propaganda.
A place where empty talk and rhetoric are quickly identified and snuffed out. This is where our politics is neither a competition of wealth or eloquence but of ideas and policies that can enhance the well-being of the people.
A place where we are not fixated on trophy projects but focused on developmental projects that are sustainable, inclusive, and responsive to the people’s needs and feedback. Of course, there are many other signposts, but these are crucial, and we should be worried if we don’t see them along the way on our journey to a better democratic paradigm.
Tooling up for the great migration
This is not a straightforward journey and getting the right travel gear is invaluable. We must develop innovative tools and strategies to keep us on track and if you permit me, I will suggest the development of three crucial tools for this journey: the veritas, Parliament Watch, and Development Tracker tools.
The Veritas tool: a system for verifying the accuracy and validity of politicians’ statements. The Veritas tool will be a system that can verify the accuracy and validity of the statements of public officials and politicians by using reliable data sources and algorithms. Going a step ahead of what Truth-O-Meter by PolitiFact offers, Veritas will assign politicians and government appointees a score or a rating that can be tagged to them to indicate their level of truthfulness. Imagine a news anchor saying after an interview that “by the way, the veritas score of Hon. Totobibidi Politician is 2.9 on the 10-point veritas scale, which has zero and 10 as the lowest and highest scores, respectively”.
Or a political talk show host bragging that his show is the best because the average veritas score of the panellists on the show is 8.2. With the right media and public support, this tool will be a check on politicians and public officials who will want to guard their integrity and public image.
I have discussed these ideas with some colleagues at the University of Cape Coast who have expertise in fact-checking, and if they are reading this, they might agree with me that now is the right time to get on with this project.
The Parliament Watch tool: a system for monitoring the debates and voting patterns of MPs. The Parliament Watch tool is a system that can monitor and analyse the debates and voting patterns of MPs, to check what policies they stand for and how the bills they support or oppose are affecting the people and the nation. This tool would have several advantages for our democracy.
First, it would increase the transparency and accountability of MPs, as they would have to justify their actions and decisions to the public. Second, it would increase the participation and engagement of the public, as they would have more information and feedback on their representatives.
Third, it would increase the quality and diversity of policy debates, as MPs would have to consider different perspectives and evidence before making their choices. Fourth, it would increase the responsiveness and effectiveness of MPs, as they would have to address the needs and concerns of their constituents and the nation.
This tool would help us evaluate the performance and alignment of our representatives and reward or sanction them accordingly at the polls. It will also help us know if they follow party lines religiously or have a mind of their own. Such a tool would make it easy to review the political, social and moral views of MPs.
The Development Tracker tool: a system for tracking the development projects and their impact. The Development Tracker tool will be a system that can monitor and evaluate the development projects that are going on around the nation, the MPs who have played a crucial role in initiating and executing those projects. It can also assess the relevance, quality, sustainability, and impact of the projects on the people and the environment.
This tool would have several benefits for our democracy. First, it would help us to appreciate the contributions and achievements of the government and MPs who often exaggerate their own role or deceive us. It can also provide a spin-free alternative narrative to what politicians tell us about their development agenda. The Development Tracker will also support research by showing the spatial distribution of development in the country and their drivers. This could inform future development planning and policy making.
To ensure the objectivity and independence of these tools, they should be developed and managed by reputable institutions that are not affiliated or biased towards any political party or interest groups. Think tanks, research centres, or civil society organisations will be the ideal custodians of these tools. These tools should be based on robust research and algorithms that use reliable and verifiable data and information from public sources, such as the hansard, transcripts, reports, and media coverage.
They should also use clear and consistent criteria and indicators to measure and rate the statements, debates, voting patterns, and development projects of politicians. Finally, curators of these tools will have to be transparent and accountable to the public, by publishing and explaining their method, data sources, results, and limitations, and by inviting feedback and suggestions from the users and stakeholders.
Conclusion
The Assin North by-election has shattered the myth of money in Ghana’s politics. It has exposed the futility of relying on money to win elections and affirm the dignity of voters who are more sophisticated than politicians give them credit for. Voters often look for more than money from their leaders: money may make them happy but it can’t buy their loyalty and support.
As one voter put it: “We are not fools. We know what is good for us. We want development, not money.” This situation has created the opportunity for us to move from the illusion of moneycracy to the reality of meritocracy in Ghana’s politics.
We have reached a familiar crossroads in our politics. A crossroads where we always miss the “right” turn. Will we miss it again this time? I hope not. I hope we seize this moment to change our politics for the better. I pray the happenings in Assin North will once and for all, awaken us and set us free from the Sisyphean curse of vote buying and inducement every election cycle.
I feel like Shimon Peres when I write this. I hear the voice that says: “this is a dream; you are a dreamer”. But like Shimon, I will keep dreaming because unlike we mortals, ideas never die. If the most complicated thing in life is to be afraid and the most important is to dare, I will choose to dare and urge you to do the same.
So, I dare you, my fellow Ghanaians – I dare you to dream of a better politics, a better democracy, and a better Ghana. Honourable politician, I dare you to resist the temptation of vote buying and inducement in the next election – it doesn’t work! I dare you to embrace meritocratic ideals that will push our democracy over the Sisyphean hill into the better Ghana we deserve.
Let us make Ghana a shining example of democracy.
The author, Daniel Amoako-Sakyi (PhD), is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana.