Constitutional law professor, H.
Kwasi Prempeh, says President John
Mahama personifies Ghana’s
leadership problem. He therefore
doubts if the President’s recent
dribsy-drabsy ministerial reshuffles,
are the solution to the West African
country’s crises.
“A cabinet/ministerial reshuffle
appears to be the only option open to
a government in a presidential system
to try to change course and arrest its
declining political fortunes in the
period between elections. But when
the leadership problem lies squarely
with the person at the helm himself,
as it does in Mahama's Ghana,
ministerial reshuffle is mere window
dressing,” the Seton Law Professor
said in a comment on Facebook.
Prempeh, who specialises in
constitutional law, comparative
constitutional design, and problems
of constitutionalism in post-
authoritarian societies, said were
Ghana practising a Westminster-style
of government, the plethora of
economic crises would have sparked
dissension and debate within the
governing party that will eventually
lead to a purge of the current leader
for a new one.
“If ours was a Westminster-style
parliamentary system of government,
the deepening crisis and paralysis of
leadership and attendant poor
governance in Ghana today might
occasion a robust debate and power
struggle within the ruling party and
cabinet.”
He said such a struggle will result “in
a challenge to the leadership of John
Mahama and his possible ouster as
head of government by a rival
insider.”
The former Director of Legal Policy
and Governance at the Ghana Centre
for Democratic Development argued
that the “ability of a majority party in
the Westminster tradition to effect an
orderly leadership change in the
period between elections, and
thereby reset the button when faced
with a crisis of confidence and
popular disaffection, is one
advantage of the parliamentary
system over the presidential.”
“In the latter, where the mandate of
the president or head of government
derives directly from the people rather
than the party, the president enjoys a
constitutionally fixed term of office.
Thus, there is, in the presidential
system, no prospect of an orderly,
internal leadership change or
challenge midstream (save by
impeachment), regardless of the
evident ineffectiveness and
deepening unpopularity of a
government. (Impeachment is, of
course, a very limited, procedurally
constrained option that is not
designed or intended as a remedy for
poor or failed leadership).
“This should give you some idea why
African leaders who inherited
parliamentary systems at
independence, beginning with
Ghana's, quickly jettisoned them for a
presidential-style government: by so
doing, they masterfully nipped in the
bud all possibility of a challenge or
change to their rule and tenure
emanating from within their party,
cabinet, or parliament,” Prempeh
said.
“We would be witnessing a great deal
of political drama, both in parliament
(e.g., Question Time) and within the
ruling party and cabinet, as well as
the prospect of an internal change ofthe guard, had we chosen a different
system of government from what we have now at this moment of crisis and decay. As things stand now, we,
including those voters feeling buyer's
remorse, are all stuck with, and must continue to suffer the pain arising
from the rule of, a grossly inept
president for another two and a half years,” he observed.
Comments
Post a Comment