Many Ghanaians may not be aware that the blueprint of our decentralisation process that brought in the metropolitan/municipal and district assemblies was not exhausted, but curtailed.
The plan was to elect assembly members who will then elect the chief executives of the political jurisdictions, just forget it that all this is about non-partisan politics. The next was the election of regional assembly members and regional chief executives, and finally, the election of national assembly members and the national chief executive (the president). For some reason, H.E. Jerry John Rawlings backed down after the M/M/DCE elections, and ventured no further.
What did Jerry Rawlings see in his dreams about this concept that frightened him? He had once boasted that once the national assembly was elected into office, he and his team would make themselves redundant in national politics. That was somewhere in the late 80s, and Jerry stayed on until he was made redundant in 2001.
The idea of electing M/M/DCEs as members of parliament (MPs) are elected has come out strongly lately, and the new government has promised to make that effective.
The question many well-meaning Ghanaians are asking is, “Are we there yet?” Has our politics matured to the level that every elected officer will be objective, and never to be moved by the dictates of his or her political party or ideology in seeking what they deem fit for the people who elected them?
Assuming that I, yours truly, was elected the chief executive of Offinso South because of my full NPP colours and the NDC government is in power, will I not do things to make sure people lose trust in that government, in order to enhance my party’s chances in the next elections?
Under whose direct authority will I be? Certainly, it can’t be under the Local Government Ministry, which would put me directly under the executive arm of government. Ideally, the state will have to create another house like the House of Parliament, which the government cannot constitutionally exert power on.
If I misapply assembly funds who calls me to order? Certainly, the President cannot. If the government fails to bring in the funds, I can create problems for it.
There was this news which made rounds in the late 70s or 80s concerning a Nigerian State Governor. The President had put up a large residential area for the people of that state. The Governor decided to pull the buildings down with the excuse that the President was not from his party.
Looking at it on the other side of the coin, the need to have mass elections of chief executives is called for. Some of them detach themselves from the people and align directly to the Presidency, because they were appointed by H.E. Some run into trouble with their party members who would write thesis on why they should be removed and present them to H.E. Such actions and inactions could hinder growth and development, and this does not auger well for nation building.
However, with our developing political experiment, there is the need for the government in power to have some control over the assemblies, through which it can extend its manifesto promises to the people. Come to think of it, there is no area in Ghana which is not under any assembly.
Are we in a Catch-22 situation, here? If the President nominates the chief executives and has a third of the assembly filled with his or her appointees, they will play to his tune and not to the tune of the people. So, in order to punish the people of Offinso South for persistently voting against the NDC, that government could deny the people their share of the national cake. If we allow the people to directly vote for a chief executive of their choice, the assembly could fight against the government, or be denied funds if it is not in the ruling party’s stronghold.
So what can be done? Because people must have direct input on who is to be their chief executive.
So what can be done about this? The idea of sovereign people in the MMDs electing their chief executives is most ideal. What the President can do to kill several birds with one stone is to make the chief executives show loyalty to him/her, and to the good people in the area.
The Constitution could be amended to enable the President to present at least five names to the traditional and religious institutions in the assemblies’ areas of jurisdiction.
These bodies could vet the list, and the top three are put up to be elected by all eligible voters. In this way, the elected chief executives will become loyal to the President who nominated them, to the traditional and religious leadership who vetted them, and to the people who voted for them.
I believe this can satisfy all, and the chief executives must be given a full term in office, irrespective of any change in government. They must be allowed to work till their term expires. In this case, July will be their end of term.
The danger of allowing chief executives to be elected as parliamentarians could hamper government policies in areas which it is traditionally unpopular.
<<Print>>