Kenya’s devolution experience offers key lessons for Ghana

Ghana enjoys a reputation as one of Africa’s democratic success stories.

In large part, this is due to the peaceful transfer of power from one president and political party to another in 2000 and 2004, and to the peaceful succession of power following the death of President John Atta Mills in 2012.

It is also due to a sense that the quality of polls has steadily improved since 1992, as the country has moved from opaque to transparent ballot boxes, a more detailed electoral register, and, most recently, biometric registration and validation of voters.

Nevertheless, many Ghanaians complain about the quality of the country’s democratic system.

This includes allegations of widespread corruption (with discussions currently focused on revelations of scandals within the country’s Judiciary); complaints of a bloated electoral register that could be used in favour of the ruling National Democratic Congress in next year’s general election; an insistence that power is overly centralised in the Office of the President; and assertions that parties are mere vehicles to gain power.

This tension between a sense of achievement and frustration was evident during the country’s just-concluded district assembly elections.

These polls are held every four years; are scheduled to fall between general elections; and give voters an opportunity to elect unit committee and district assembly members.

BIOMETRIC REGISTRATION

What is clear is that Ghana’s electoral commission has continued to learn from past experiences and to improve its processes.

In 2012, the country moved to biometric registration and verification.

If the machine did not recognise your fingerprint on election day, then you could not vote.

This led to serious delays and tensions in 2012, when machines broke down.

Many were ultimately disenfranchised when the machines failed to recognise them.

The issue of “no biometric verification, no vote” also became central to the opposition’s Supreme Court petition, as lawyers cited anomalies on forms at the polling station level.

They argued that some presiding officers had erroneously entered a figure into the box that asked for the number of non-biometrically verified votes cast.

However, these problems were largely addressed on September 1, as the electoral commission invested in back-ups, and used more sensitive and effective machines.

The commission also changed its forms and removed the box that allowed for any non-biometrically verified voters to be counted in the final tally.

At the same time, the district assembly elections witnessed a relatively low turnout.

VOTER TURNOUT

Many ascribed this to peculiarities of the district assembly system.

First, while Ghana is characterised by two dominant political parties, the district assembly elections are officially non-partisan.

However, in practice, it is generally accepted that the elections are partisan — people know which party a candidate belongs to, while political outfits often back preferred candidates.

Second, while 70 per cent of district assembly members are elected, 30 per cent are presidential appointees.

The president also appoints the district chief executive (DCE), who chairs the executive committee that oversees the assembly’s work.

In addition, the DCE is an ex officio member of the assembly and acts as the line manager for district-level civil servants.

The result, as Gordon Crawford has argued, is that, “while the rhetoric of decentralisation talks of making democracy a reality, the actual reality (in Ghana) is about the maintenance of central government control”.

DEVOLUTION

In turn, many Ghanaians call for democratic devolution and for partisan elections at all levels.

In short, many demand a system that would look much more like Kenya’s county governments.

As a result, just as it is clear that there is much that Kenya can learn from Ghana’s institutional practices, there is also much that Ghana can learn from Kenya’s Constitution.

While Kenya’s devolution has been widely criticised for the localisation of corruption and exacerbation of inter-communal tensions, reforms have clearly involved the transfer of substantial powers to the new county governments, and established offices that are capable of coming together against the centre.

Kenya’s experience — with all of its ups and downs — thus has some important lessons to offer.