Economy

    MMDCE reform risks one party control despite non partisan label

    Proposed changes to district executive elections raise concerns about partisan influence over candidate selection.

    2 min read3 min listen
    Ghana's proposed reform for electing Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs) faces significant criticism. Experts warn the current plan could allow a single political party to dominate all 261 districts. This outcome would contradict the reform's stated goal of non-partisan local governance. The core issue lies in the proposed candidate selection process. Political authorities would nominate five candidates, from whom three would be shortlisted for the ballot. Critics argue that if nominating and shortlisting are controlled by government or party-aligned structures, the 'non-partisan' election becomes a facade. This system could effectively exclude political opponents before voters even cast a ballot. This debate fits into Ghana's long-standing struggle for truly independent local governance. For 30 years, Ghanaians have complained about MMDCEs who answer only to the President. The Constitutional Review Committee (CRC), chaired by Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, recommended direct, non-partisan elections. A 2023 Institute of Economic Affairs survey found nearly 70% of Ghanaians supported this idea. Professor Prempeh, the architect of the original reform, has publicly stated the government's position has 'thrown a spanner in the works.' He believes the current proposal deviates significantly from the CRC's intent. Martin Adjei-Mensah Korsah, a former Local Government Minister, agrees, saying the new arrangement is 'no different from what it claims to be replacing.' The original CRC recommendation included an independent Devolution Commission. This commission would have overseen the phased rollout of elections, ensuring genuine non-partisanship. The current government proposal, however, replaces this independent body with a system where political authorities manage nominations. This change raises serious questions about the reform's integrity. Ghana's major political parties have historically built local dominance through MMDCE appointments. These positions control development project allocation and party infrastructure. Removing party logos from ballots does not address this underlying power structure if party-aligned bodies still control who can run. The risk is that incumbency and state resources will quietly decide who stands for election. To ensure the reform is genuine, three key factors need scrutiny. First, the nominating body must be genuinely insulated from the ruling party. Second, the selection process needs to be transparent, allowing excluded candidates to challenge their removal publicly. Third, the phased rollout must be based on genuine readiness, not political convenience. This is not an argument against electing MMDCEs, which has strong public support. However, a reform of this magnitude demands careful scrutiny of its details. Ghana has a history of popular constitutional ideas being undermined by their implementation. The critical question is whether the new system truly changes who decides which names Ghanaians can choose from, or if it merely rebrands the old system.

    Comments

    More from StatsGH