The Ghanaian democracy, consensus building: The missing link between our freedom and our aspiring development

The heart of Democracy is majority rule which follows the consequentialist position that, if the political power must emanate from the people, then the final decision should be the decision or happiness of the greatest number of people.

However, in cases where no side obtains majority in decision making or no side meets the institutionally created majority requirements, Democracy offers what is called “consensus building” as a tool for reaching a decision in the interest of all.

Consensus Building can be defined as "a process involving a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders and seek a unanimous agreement" (Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School).

Is the Ghanaian Democratic practice placing a premium on Consensus building? Some relevance of Consensus building have been highlighted earlier. It must also be added that democracy must be a majority dictatorship all the time. At times, the wishes of the minority ought to be factored in the policy decisions for the benefit of all.

This article purposefully explores Ghana’s Democracy and consensus building by looking at the executive-legislature relationship and also periods of economic crisis.

With the Executive-Legislature relationship, the executive, since 1992, has always had its way in terms of getting its policies and programmes passed in parliament with ease. This is not as a result of good policy formulation or due diligence but the fact that the political party that wins the presidency usually obtains majority seats in parliament.

For that reason, checks and balances which ought to exist between the executive and the legislature to ensure they both operate within the framework of the laws and also work for the interest of the state is traded off for partisan interest.

However, the outcome of the 2020 general elections changed this narrative in the 8th Parliament of Ghana as all political parties failed to secure enough seats to claim majority. With the independent member joining the NPP side, we had a majority group in the house.

This dynamic was a pure test of our democracy. A test to ascertain whether we have fully come to understand the Democracy we have been practicing since 1992. That, in the midst of a situation where the executive cannot get the legislature to support its decisions at all times, consensus building will be the way to go.

It appears the hung parliament has not only exposed our shallow understanding and practice of Democracy; but also, the acrimony and blood ties between the two major political parties in the country.

The verbal banter and physical exchange of blows witnessed in the house of parliament are clear indications of our failure to employ diplomatic engagements and negotiations to reach decisions in the interests of all.

Not only that, we have seen deliberate efforts to frustrate some members on the minority side and also to reduce their number. These happenings are not maturing our democracy but rather leaving a bitter precedent for revenge and equalization when government changes hands in the future.

On the side of economic management, under a monosepalous executive system where the ceremonial functions and real executive functions are vested in one person, it is very difficult to separate national interest from partisan interest. In other words, because the leader of the executive hails from a political party, every decision from him or his appointees would receive political scrutiny.

Under what circumstance does it become necessary to push national interest ahead of partisan interest and how can that be achieved? As far as economic management is concerned, partisan interest must be set aside for national interest in times of economic crisis or developing a long term development plan for the country.

With the economic crisis, solutions to save the economy, the people and the future of the country beyond political rhetoric ought to be prioritized over who performs better. The President and the party in government have to put their pride aside and call all heads to the table for decisions that would be in the interest of all.

When Dumsor struck the Ghanaian economy from 2012 to 2015, the government of the day put aside her pride, acknowledged the fact that there was a crisis and called for a Consensus building at Senchi in the year 2014.

The outcome of the forum labelled home-grown solutions to salvage the economic deficiencies the country was facing. Along the way, the home-grown policies were augmented by the IMF’s Extended Credit Facility which restored the image of Ghana in the international financial market.

Relatively, the impact of Dumsor is nowhere near the Covid-19 pandemic and the spillover effects of recent international politics and so the Ghanaian economy is doing worse than what we experienced under Dumsor.

It is therefore wise for the ruling side to put aside their pride and call for a negotiation among stakeholders of the economy for constructive decisions devoid of partisan politics.

It is very worrying and disturbing that the government of the day is failing to be friendly enough for unity and togetherness to lead in these times. The opposition has rather placed a call for consensus building on the economy but the government is refusing to consider that option.

I do not intend to dig deep into this because, wherever there is a choice, there is opportunity cost after a decision is taken. I will dedicate another time for some of these options.

In conclusion, we are living in a modernized form of Thomas Hobes' "state of nature" under our democratic dispensation due to the absence of consensus building.

I am tempted to believe that we, at any material time, have to experience the "bad" for some time before we drift towards the "good" and I cite our alternation between democratic government and military government we experienced before settling for what we are enjoying today as a classical example.

Maybe, we will be learning our lessons after we realize that this trend of fighting each other and the evil machination of elimination by rough tactics is doing us harm more than good. Until then, the blame is not on democracy but our attitude, for others have succeeded with it.