For more than three decades, Ghana has stood tall as a beacon of stability in a region often shaken by political uncertainty. The Fourth Republic has given us peaceful transitions of power, vibrant public debate and an enviable degree of civic freedom. Yet beneath this stability lies a growing national concern: that the political system which has served us since 1993 is no longer delivering the socio-economic progress, policy continuity and inclusive governance that Ghanaians rightfully expect.

There is an emerging consensus across academia, civil society, traditional institutions, industry leaders and the youth that Ghana must refine, indeed upgrade its political system. Not to weaken democracy but to strengthen it. Not to replace the Fourth Republic but to modernise it to meet the demands of a new era. Such a national conversation is overdue, and now is the moment to bring it to the centre of our public discourse.

1. A stable democracy without transformative development

Stability is not the same as progress. While Ghana has enjoyed political calm, living standards have not improved at the pace expected in a country with our human capital, natural resources and democratic maturity. Unemployment, especially among the youth remains high. Industrialisation has been slow. Long-term national projects stall or reverse with each election cycle.

A political system’s success must be measured not only by its ability to hold elections but by its ability to translate the aspirations of citizens into sustained development. Here, the cracks are evident.

2. The winner-takes-all presidency: a structure that limits our potential

Ghana’s presidential system grants enormous power to the executive: appointments, development priorities, public institutions and even local governance are significantly shaped by the party in power. While this centralisation creates clarity and speed in decision-making, it also fuels political polarisation and patronage.

More critically, it often produces abrupt changes in national policy every eight years. This makes it difficult to pursue long-term national priorities in energy, water, agriculture, digital transformation, industrial growth and climate resilience. Investors notice this. So do development partners. The nation cannot afford such volatility.

3. An ethnically diverse country needs an ethnically sensitive system

Ghana’s unity is often celebrated and rightly so. Yet unity in diversity must be supported by institutions that recognise and accommodate our cultural mosaic. Traditional authorities remain influential in national cohesion, community development and conflict resolution. However, they operate on the periphery of political power, despite representing centuries of local legitimacy.

A refined political system must harmonise modern democratic governance with Ghana’s indigenous governance traditions. This is not a matter of nostalgia; it is smart institutional design. Countries with deep cultural pluralism such as Switzerland, Canada, India and Ethiopia have achieved stability because governance reflected their social realities. Countries with complex ethnic or cultural compositions enjoy greater stability when their political systems deliberately recognise, accommodate and integrate that diversity into governance rather than ignore or suppress it. Ghana, with its unique mosaic of ethnic groups and strong traditional institutions, stands to benefit greatly from a governance model that intentionally aligns with its social and cultural realities, rather than relying solely on imported political designs.

4. Policy disruptions are costly and Ghana pays the price every eight years

Ghana’s political parties, when in power, often introduce flagship initiatives that are discontinued or redesigned when a new administration takes over. This “policy start-stop cycle” undermines development planning, wastes public resources and discourages private sector investment.

The result is a country in permanent “pilot project mode”, where good ideas rarely mature into nationwide programmes. A refined political system must institutionalise continuity, ensuring that good policies survive political transitions regardless of which party is in office.

5. Local governments cannot drive local development without real power

Most decisions, including financial, administrative and developmental are made in Accra. Yet the communities that need roads, water systems, agro-processing infrastructure and basic social services are found in the districts. Local governments remain structurally weak, under-resourced and overly dependent on central government. This centralised arrangement is out of step with global best practice.

A strengthened Ghana must devolve real power and resources to local authorities while preserving national cohesion. This will make governance more responsive, efficient and accountable to the people.

6. Rising public discontent must be taken seriously

Across the country and until recently, citizens express growing frustration with the political status quo. Many young people believe that politics no longer reflects their aspirations or provides credible pathways to economic empowerment. Public trust in political institutions is declining and not because Ghanaians reject democracy but because they want democracy to work better for them.

A nation that ignores such sentiments courts instability. A nation that addresses them earns the trust of future generations.

7. The world is changing and Ghana must not lag behind

Countries are redesigning their political systems to improve accountability, strengthen institutions, foster inclusivity and guarantee policy continuity. Models that blend presidential leadership with parliamentary oversight are emerging. Some nations are creating constitutional bodies that insulate long-term development planning from political cycles. Others are incorporating traditional institutions into modern governance frameworks.

In many parts of the world, countries that have successfully insulated development from political cycles have done so by establishing strong, technocratic institutions that operate above partisan interests. Singapore is a leading example. Its Economic Development Board and Future Economy Council guide national transformation with a level of consistency that has endured for decades, regardless of political changes. These bodies ensure that long-term industrial planning, investment priorities and workforce development are never compromised by short-term political calculations. The result is a stable, predictable policy environment that has underpinned Singapore’s remarkable economic success.

Rwanda offers another useful illustration. The country’s Vision 2050 and its medium-term National Strategy for Transformation are overseen by specialised planning secretariats that hold ministries accountable for meeting national targets. These bodies are deliberately shielded from political interference, creating a culture of disciplined execution that many African countries admire but struggle to emulate.

South Korea’s transformation from a war-torn agrarian society into a global technological powerhouse was similarly driven by its Economic Planning Board, which coordinated national development plans across successive governments. Because the Board’s mandate transcended electoral cycles, the country implemented seven consecutive long-term plans with unwavering commitment.

Botswana provides an African model of stability anchored in long-range planning. Its Vision 2016 and now Vision 2036 are guided by dedicated presidential commissions that maintain continuity across administrations. Despite changes in leadership, the national vision has remained intact, contributing to Botswana’s reputation as one of the continent’s most stable democracies.

Malaysia’s development trajectory has also been shaped by its Economic Planning Unit, a technocratic institution responsible for formulating the country’s Five-Year Plans and long-term visions. Even during political instability in recent years, these development pathways have remained largely unchanged, demonstrating the importance of institutional continuity.

Finland offers a different but equally compelling model. Its Parliament houses a permanent Committee for the Future, which is an innovative, non-partisan body responsible for analysing megatrends and advising the entire political system on long-term national priorities. Because its work informs every incoming administration, Finland maintains a high degree of continuity in innovation, education and sustainability planning.

These examples demonstrate a clear principle: countries that shield their development strategies from the volatility of electoral politics achieve greater policy continuity, stronger investor confidence and more stable progress over time. Ghana has an institution, the National Development Planning Commission that was intended to play such a role. However, its authority and resources are insufficient to prevent policy discontinuities that occur with every change of government. Strengthening the NDPC, or replacing it with a constitutionally empowered, independent national planning authority, is essential if Ghana wishes to pursue long-term transformation without the disruptive effects of political cycles. Ghana can learn from these innovations. Indeed, Ghana must learn from them if we intend to stay competitive, attract global investment, and defend our democratic legacy.

Although Ghana constitutionally recognises the institution of chieftaincy and maintains both National and Regional Houses of Chiefs, the extent of integration between traditional leadership and the modern governance system remains limited. What Ghana has today is recognition without true incorporation, an arrangement that acknowledges the cultural significance of traditional authorities but gives them little formal influence in national policy-making or development planning.

Traditional leaders serve as custodians of culture, customary law and communal lands and they command deep legitimacy within their communities. Yet they are largely absent from the key structures of the state. Chiefs do not participate in the lawmaking process, nor do they have a formal advisory role to Parliament on matters directly touching land, culture, resource use or local governance, which are areas where their insights are most relevant. This stands in contrast to countries such as Botswana, where the House of Chiefs forms an integral, constitutionally recognised advisory body to Parliament, or South Africa where traditional councils work alongside municipalities in rural governance.

At the local level, Ghana’s Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies operate with minimal involvement from traditional authority structures. Chiefs have no formal seats, no defined consultative role in district development planning and no institutional mechanism for contributing to land-use planning, environmental management or conflict resolution, despite being central actors in all these domains. The absence of structured collaboration weakens both local governance and national cohesion.

In the area of land and natural resource governance, the disconnect becomes even more apparent. Although nearly 80% of Ghana’s land remains under customary ownership, traditional authorities are not formally involved in the formulation of policies on forestry, mining, water resources or environmental management. Decisions that affect their territories are often taken in Accra, creating a sense of detachment and at times, mistrust between state agencies and the custodians of customary land. Countries such as Canada and New Zealand demonstrate that co-management frameworks where traditional authorities share responsibility and decision-making powers with the state can greatly enhance legitimacy, reduce conflicts and improve resource stewardship.

What emerges from these comparisons is a simple but important insight: Ghana’s current approach acknowledges traditional authority in principle but not in practice. The structures exist but the influence is minimal. If Ghana is to build a more inclusive and culturally grounded governance system i.e., one capable of enhancing stability, strengthening social cohesion and improving policy implementation then a deeper, more deliberate incorporation of traditional institutions is necessary. Such an approach would not diminish modern democracy; it would enrich it by aligning governance more closely with the lived realities, values and leadership structures of Ghanaian communities.

A Call to National Reflection and Renewal

Ghana is not in crisis, but it stands at a decisive crossroads. This moment offers a rare opportunity to refine our governance system before today’s structural weaknesses evolve into future instability or hinder national development. Engaging in a national conversation about political reform must not be viewed as an attack on any government or political party; rather, it is an expression of patriotism and a sincere commitment to safeguarding the country’s long-term future.

We owe it to ourselves to build a governance structure that sustains long-term development, reflects the richness of our cultural diversity and meaningfully empowers local government. Our system must encourage collaboration rather than polarisation and must ensure that national policies endure beyond electoral cycles. It should deepen citizen participation, reduce exclusion and strengthen accountability and transparency at all levels of government.

The Fourth Republic has brought Ghana stability, respectability and steady democratic progress. Yet, just as it has served us well, we must now, in turn, strengthen and modernise it for the next phase of our national journey. The question before us is not whether Ghana’s political system should evolve. The true question is whether we possess the courage, the foresight and the collective resolve to embark on this journey now and to pursue it with the seriousness and patriotism that the moment so clearly demands.