Finally! It is election week, and in the flurry of last-minute activities perhaps we can spare a few minutes to confront an uncomfortable truth: our democratic challenges run deeper than policy disagreements or economic hardship.
They are rooted in a profound cultural disconnect between our traditional understanding of leadership and the democratic principles we aspire to embrace.
Here is a paradox: we operate within a system that speaks the language of presidential and parliamentary democracy, yet our cultural memory/outlook still echoes with the authority of kings and chiefs.
This is a fundamental tension that shapes how power is exercised and experienced in our nation.
Our traditional governance systems, rich in history and meaning, viewed leaders not as public servants but as near-divine figures. The historical practice of burying servants with chiefs and kings – concrete evidence of absolute authority – may be long gone, but its psychological imprint lingers in our political consciousness.
When we wonder why our elected officials retreat into their palatial mansions after campaigns – treating engagement with citizens as a necessary inconvenience rather than a democratic duty, we need look no further than this cultural inheritance.
The evidence is written in our political behaviour. Watch how our ‘modern’ political parties naturally align with traditional loyalties, how voting patterns mirror ethnic and religious boundaries with almost mathematical precision.
We have grafted the apparatus of democratic politics onto the sturdy roots of kinship loyalty. The result? A hybrid system that often preserves the worst of both worlds: the absolutism of traditional authority without its traditional checks and balances and the form of democracy without its substantive accountability.
Stated differently, there are no presidents or prime ministers in our cultural dynamics, just kings and chiefs and their subjects – and that is how our political leaders view us. Similarly, in the same vein there are no political parties. Loyalty is to one’s kinsmen; and this is why, regardless of objective issues, voting is often blindly along ethnic or religious lines.
Our politicians, astute readers of cultural currents, understand this dynamic perfectly. Make no mistake, while they might say the most preposterous things to defend their positions, they are far from ignorant.
They recognise that while they must perform the rituals of democracy – campaigns, promises, occasional public appearances – they can govern through a more traditional paradigm of authority. They know that many voters still view themselves more as subjects than citizens, more as recipients of patronage than stakeholders in governance.
This cultural dynamic helps explain why Ghana, despite its democratic credentials, continues to struggle with issues of political accountability and public service delivery. The data tell a compelling story. Voting patterns in successive elections show remarkable consistency along ethnic and regional lines, with some constituencies voting up to 95 percent for the same party across multiple election cycles. This predictability reduces the incentive for substantive policy debate and encourages a form of political patronage that mirrors traditional chief-subject relationships.
This is not to suggest that traditional authority structures were uniformly negative. Indeed, traditional leadership often embodied important principles of community responsibility and moral authority. However, the selective adaptation of traditional power dynamics into modern politics has often preserved the authority while shedding the responsibility.
Research across West Africa suggests that where traditional authority structures maintain strong, cultural relevance, democratic institutions often function as mere veneers over more deeply rooted power dynamics. Ghana’s case is particularly instructive: despite hosting eight successive elections since 1992, the country’s political parties have increasingly evolved into vehicles for ethnic and regional mobilisation rather than platforms for policy contestation.
Market analysts and international observers often overlook this cultural dimension when assessing our political risk profile. Yet understanding these dynamics is crucial for predicting policy consistency and governance outcomes. The tendency of elected officials to behave more like traditional rulers than public servants affects everything from fiscal discipline to public sector reform implementation.
The economic consequences are significant. International development partners have consistently identified weak institutional accountability as a key factor in our recurring fiscal challenges. The IMF’s latest country report notably highlights “governance vulnerabilities” as a significant risk factor, though it stops short of examining their cultural underpinnings.
For investors and development partners, understanding this cultural context is crucial. Policy implementations often falter not due to technical shortcomings but because they conflict with deeply-held cultural expectations about leadership and authority. The recent challenges with implementing public sector reforms serve as a case in point: technically sound policies have faced resistance partly because they challenge established power dynamics.
However, there are signs of change. A growing urban middle-class, increasingly connected to global networks, is beginning to demand more accountable governance. Youth-led social movements are questioning traditional power structures, though they face significant resistance from entrenched interests.
On the cusp of another election, the critical question is not just who will win but whether we can begin to bridge this cultural-political divide. Can we evolve a political culture that honours our cultural psyche while embracing the essential principles of democratic accountability?
The path forward requires more than just electoral reform or anti-corruption measures, though these are important. We need a deeper cultural conversation about leadership, citizenship and power. We must question whether our tendency to view political leaders as modern-day chiefs serves our national interests.
We must ask whether voting along ethnic lines – a pattern that makes electoral outcomes predictable and genuine policy debate unnecessary – truly serves our collective future.
This cultural transformation will not happen overnight. Just as our traditional systems evolved over centuries, our democratic culture will need time to mature. However, we can accelerate this evolution through intentional effort: civic education that helps citizens transition from subject to stakeholders; leadership training that emphasises service over authority; and public discourse that challenges outdated notions of political power.
As we prepare to cast our ballots, we must begin to demand more than promises of development projects or temporary handouts. We must insist on leaders who understand that democratic authority comes with democratic responsibility. We must evolve beyond being subjects awaiting royal benevolence to citizens actively shaping our national destiny.
The stakes are high. Our ability to address current economic challenges – including managing new oil wealth and maintaining fiscal discipline – depends significantly on strengthening democratic accountability. This requires not just institutional reform but a fundamental shift in how political authority is conceived and exercised.
The journey ahead is long, but the first step is acknowledging where we stand. Only by understanding how our cultural inheritance shapes our political present can we begin to chart a course toward a more genuinely democratic future.
Hopefully, in a short time, we will get to the point where basic community amenities are not treated as favours being bestowed by benevolent authorities on the poor masses – and when we complain that “there is no bread” we are not asked to “go eat cake” instead.
God bless our homeland Ghana!
