Renowned legal scholar and Fellow of the Ghana Centre for Democratic Development, Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, has issued a sobering reflection on the state of Ghana’s democracy, warning that hyper-partisan politics under the Fourth Republic is steadily eroding the civic foundations needed for democratic governance to thrive.
Writing in a reflective essay, Professor Asare, widely known as GOGO, situated his critique within a long personal history of democratic advocacy. He recalled his firm opposition to authoritarian and quasi-authoritarian governance models in Ghana’s past, including one-party rule and various attempts to dilute competitive politics.
While reaffirming his unwavering commitment to democracy, he acknowledges that more than three decades of multiparty practice have deeply unsettled his faith in how party politics is being lived out in Ghana today.
He was careful to draw a clear distinction between democracy as a system of governance and the way partisan competition has evolved. Democracy, he insisted, remains non-negotiable.
The ballot must remain stronger than the bullet, and power must continue to change hands peacefully through the will of the people. Yet, he argued, the manner in which party politics is practiced increasingly undermines the very Republic it is meant to serve.
When Party Advantage Supersedes the Public Good
At the heart of Professor Asare’s critique is the concern that national decision-making has become excessively filtered through partisan calculations, adding that too many policy choices are judged primarily by whether they advance electoral advantage rather than whether they serve the long-term interests of the country.
This tendency, he argued, has encouraged short-term political gain at the expense of sustainable national development. According to him, when political survival becomes the dominant lens, governance loses its moral compass.
Policies that require patience, continuity, and national consensus are often sacrificed because their benefits may not materialize within an electoral cycle. Over time, this weakens the state’s capacity to pursue coherent development strategies.
Professor Asare also lamented the steady erosion of civic identity. He noted that citizens are increasingly recast as members of rival political camps rather than co-owners of a shared Republic. In this environment, partisan affiliation often overrides national solidarity.
This shift, he warned, is corrosive. Instead of seeing fellow citizens as partners in a collective national project, Ghanaians are encouraged to view one another as adversaries to be defeated. Such polarization fractures social cohesion and diminishes the sense of shared responsibility that democracy depends on.
A State Trapped in Permanent Campaign Mode
Another major concern raised is the transformation of governance into perpetual campaigning. Professor Asare argued that the political cycle in Ghana rarely pauses long enough for genuine governing to take place.
Internal party contests, victory tours, post election recriminations, and constant repositioning for the next election create a state that is always mobilizing politically but rarely focusing fully on administration and service delivery.
This permanent campaign culture, he suggested, drains institutional energy and distracts leaders from the demanding work of policy implementation. The result is a state that remains politically animated but administratively fatigued.
Professor Asare further highlighted how intense partisanship fuels policy discontinuity. With every change of government, there is a risk that existing policies will be abandoned simply because they are associated with a rival party. Development, under such conditions, becomes episodic rather than cumulative.
This problem extends beyond policy into the realm of state institutions. Bodies meant to serve the Republic impartially are increasingly perceived through partisan lenses. Even when institutions act professionally, suspicion undermines their legitimacy.
The judiciary, the Electoral Commission, civil society bodies, and elements of the security services are not immune to these perceptions. He cautioned that when trust in institutions weakens, democratic stability is endangered, regardless of how strong the constitutional framework may appear on paper.
The Politicization of Expertise and Truth
One of the most troubling consequences of hyper partisanship, according to Professor Asare, is the politicization of expertise. Data, research findings, and professional advice are increasingly judged not on their merit, but on which political narrative they appear to support.
This has led to the erosion of a shared factual space. Democracies thrive on debate, but debate requires agreement on basic facts. When truth itself becomes partisan, persuasion gives way to shouting matches, and decision making becomes paralyzed.
Public discourse, he added, has become increasingly coarse. Demagoguery and insult are often rewarded with visibility, while reasoned argument struggles to gain traction. Noise displaces deliberation, weakening the quality of democratic engagement.
Beyond institutions and policies, Professor Asare draws attention to the human cost of extreme polarization. Competent professionals, he noted, are often discouraged from public service because their work may be evaluated through partisan suspicion rather than professional standards.
This environment deprives the state of valuable talent and reinforces a cycle where loyalty is prized over competence. Over time, governance suffers not from a lack of ideas or capacity, but from the depletion of trust between citizens, parties, and institutions.
A Call for Partisan Statesmanship
Despite the gravity of his critique, Professor Asare is emphatic that his argument is not an attack on democracy or a call for authoritarian alternatives. Disagreement, he insisted, is not the threat. The real danger lies in losing the shared civic foundation that allows disagreement to produce solutions rather than paralysis.
He argued that Ghana’s challenge is not whether political parties should exist, as they are essential to democratic competition. The challenge is whether party competition can be rebalanced to strengthen, rather than consume, the Republic.
What the country needs, he concluded, are not merely successful politicians, but partisan statesmen. Leaders who are loyal to their parties yet willing to speak uncomfortable truths to their own side. Leaders capable of saying that a decision may help their party but harm the country, and therefore must be resisted.
In Professor Asare’s words, a Republic does not survive on victory alone, but on restraint. Ghana’s democracy, he suggested, will endure not by abolishing parties, but by reminding those who lead them that they are custodians of a nation before they are champions of a banner.
