Democracy, as we have learned, is not a one-size-fits-all; different regions of the world have various forms of democracy.
Indian and Chinese democracies may be flawed, and illiberal, but they are quite decisive and have made some progress economically.
We often think the gold standard of democracy is Western democracy, free and fair elections, welfare state, etc.
Even countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and Switzerland have their forms of democracy, which are different from Anglo-American democracy, which is practiced in the UK and USA.
But, all these countries have evolved their forms of democracy based on their cultures.
In Ghana, we often picture the democracy in the USA or the UK as the paragon or ideal of democracy.
Clearly, democracy is a process and method of leadership selection; it is not a form of government as was alluded to by Parag Khana a global expert on globalization [some will argue that it is indeed a form of government].
He makes the case that the forms of government are vastly diverse across the different forms of democracy (multiparty, parliamentary system, presidential republic, etc.).
The phrase: “democracies are” might not be the right word. Since there is no one standard definition of the best form of democracy.
While some democracies are doing well, others are failing. The question we in Ghana should be asking is: What is the right model of democracy that will fit our cultural construct?
We adopted a Constitution which was a mixture of British and American systems. We never made provision for the codification of our customary laws in our constitution.
This, I believe, should have been done by the National House of Chiefs. This was an argument that was echoed by the Late Justice VCRAC Crabbe, which I strongly concur.
Ghana is a stable, democratic country with a history of successful political transitions, a free press, an active civil society, and an independent judiciary.
Ghana has held eight free and fair elections since 1992 and continues to address challenges—such as corruption, poor governance and natural resource management, conflict, and weak accountability systems in the public sector—to become a self-reliant, resilient democracy.
Trust in the Electoral Commission (EC), courts, and police has plummeted to unprecedented lows, according to the latest Afrobarometer survey in 2024.
The data, collected from 1999 to 2022, reveals a concerning decline in public confidence in these crucial institutions.
The EC, which once enjoyed a trust level of 75% in 2005, now commands the trust of only 33% of Ghanaians. This marks a sharp drop from its initial 63% trust rating in 1999.
The courts have similarly seen a significant erosion of public trust. In 2005, 62% of respondents expressed confidence in the judicial system.
However, this figure has steadily declined, hitting a new low of 36% in 2022.
The Police force, often seen as the frontline of law enforcement, has also not been spared.
Trust in the Police peaked at 64% in 2005 but has since fallen to a mere 28% in 2022, reflecting growing public dissatisfaction.
These figures, sourced from Afrobarometer Data [Ghana], highlight a troubling trend of diminishing confidence in institutions critical to the democratic process and the rule of law.
The Cambridge dictionary defines a coup d’état as a sudden defeat of a government through illegal force by a small group, often a military one.
Ghana experienced five coups during the 1960s and 1970s, before military leader Jerry Rawlings overthrew Hilla Limann in 1981, ushering in Ghana’s Fourth Republic.
Since 1992, there have been no reports of attempted coups. The Fourth Republic has been spared with no coup d’états so far.
A Frenchman Ernest Renan defines a nation as a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which properly speaking, are really one and the same constitute this soul, this spiritual principle.
One is the past, the other is the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the desire to continue to invest in the heritage that we have jointly received.
A nation, like the individual, is the outcome of a long past of efforts, sacrifices, and devotions.
Based on Ernest Renan’s definition, a nation has no ethnic purpose. These are people who have the will to live together.
Summarized by a famous phrase: “having done great things together and wishing to do more” he believed nations are not eternal they have a beginning and an end.
[repetition] We in Ghana are an amalgam of different ethnic groups. There should be a conscious attempt to bring these groups together to reduce acts of nepotism and ethnocentrism.
However, our actions seem to point to some bias in ethnocentrism. Even in our voting points, and our appointments in public positions, among others, there are always perceived biases based on ethnicity that are raised by the citizenry on a continual basis.
After independence, we have tried many things to have national unity, but still, we see people seeing themselves first from a tribe or ethnicity before a nation in Ghana.
In most parts of Africa, including Ghana, I am not really sure of our definition of “nation.” In principle, we aspire to live together as different ethnic groups; however, in practice, we see daily complaints of ethnic discrimination in various spheres of our lives.
It is about time, as a nation, we agreed on the conceptual definition of being a Ghanaian.
You see tribal clubs on our university campuses, even Ghanaians in the diaspora are more used to their tribal groupings than any Ghana society.
Most people feel more comfortable with their tribal groupings. This clearly points to the fact that we still have a lot to do to really become a soul as defined by Ernest Renan.
Once I visited a queenmother in Ghana with a political leader who hails from that part of Ghana, and she said: Hon now that you have a position it is “Kokofu ball”, every opportunity you get while there, bring it to your people in this town.
This clearly implies any good opportunity that comes his way he should not forget his people.
This is how they will measure him as having been a successful politician. How can we, with such attitudes, deal with corruption?
Our very culture promotes nepotism. Once you are a Ghanaian and have any public appointment, the nation’s development should be your main focus.
Ideally, in a democracy, there should be critical voices in the country that comment on national issues regardless of the political party in power.
In Ghana with our 2 main political parties, we find, to a large extent, individuals who find their voices when one political party is in power and stop talking when the other party is in power.
This, to a large extent, has led to a credibility deficit and most of them have lost their reputation among the citizenry. The lack of neutral voices has led to a gap in our governance.
Ghana, like every other nation-state, is governed by the rule of law. As was said by the renowned Chinese thinker Confucius: “If people are governed by virtue and rules of propriety are used to maintain order, they will have a sense of shame and will become good as well.”
It is not surprising that governance of the world in the early days had a spiritual element. This came with a sense of shame for individuals who flouted the commandments of God.
Within our traditional systems in Ghana, we had a sense of shame. Now it is about getting lawyers to defend you and outwitting the system; what we term “smart”.
Honour and integrity are becoming obsolete terms. Now smartness in contemporary times is defined as being able to outwit the laws and take advantage of the loopholes.
Companies and Governments globally hire the best lawyers who understand the system so well and can outwit it.
These are the ones who get ahead. We have placed a lot of emphasis on the lawyer”. Clearly, laws are not enough; we need culture, systems, and incentivized mechanisms.
When Captain Maclean became governor of the Gold Coast between 1831 and 1843, there was relative peace.
He was able to govern the Gold Coast with just 120 men all natives of the Gold Coast. Hitherto most governors had larger armies to defend them.
He adjudicated cases all over the country with some British concepts mixed with Akan tradition and people went out of their way to bring their cases before him to adjudicate.
There was a perception all over the place that he was just and fair. Even in instances where some chiefs were not comfortable with his judgments and wanted to make war, all the other tribes will support Captain Maclean to win the fight and peace will be finally restored.
There was a relative increase in trade and peace during his tenure.
Captain Maclean governed, mixing Akan and British concepts, and he was respected by all as fair.
However, we developed a constitution that was a blend of American and French constitutions in 1992.
Most of the African states wrote their constitutions after independence. At that moment, most African nationals saw their freedom fighters as liberators from colonial rule.
They envisaged them as Messiahs and wanted them to have maximum power to further protect them.
Their emotional fear was for them to protect them from the white man. Hence, they wanted a powerful state to defend them against neo-colonialists.
Corruption, with time, became a big issue in Africa. Because of this gap, most of the cases adjudicated in our courts do not sit well with our traditional values and increasingly lead to a lot of tensions.
We see it in the length of time taken to handle cases in our courts. The clear lesson here: you cannot govern a group of people when you do not have their interest at heart, and laws that do not reflect the traditional practices of people also tend to be problematic.
The current governance challenges in Ghana and most parts of Africa also have to do with the mistrust of Government by the people. There is a lack of honesty and integrity.
In fact, in most instances being honest will make it difficult for you to thrive, being dishonest will make you survive.
This is not the democracy we want to develop. The fundamentals of democracy are honour and trust. This is what I will term Democracy 101.
When these basics of democracy are lacking in a country, that to me is a coup d’état.
It is about time we re-examine the definition of coup d’état. The old understanding based on military men disrupting a democratic system ought to be revisited.
Once there is a lack of integrity and honour, lack of accountability, fair procedures, and systems, we already have coup d’états.
This implies that in critical institutions, such as the judiciary and public institutions, the process of appointment should be transparent, and the individuals should have unquestionable character. Any flaws in these appointments amount to a coup d’état.
The tools for governance are soul, reciprocal confidence, trust, and shared dreams. Once trust is diminished, the rule of law is weakened, and citizens’ perception of corruption is high, that is a breakdown of the democracy, which, to me, constitutes a coup d’état.
It is about time we reexamined the definition of a coup d’état. Do we stick to our dictionary definition of coup d’état or we revisit the definition?
The writer is a Public Health Physician Specialist at the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital and lectures in health policy and health systems at the University of Ghana Medical School.