Dr. John Osae-Kwapong, Democracy and Development Fellow, CDD-Ghana, and Project Director, the Democracy Project
In the United States, midterm elections are a key feature of the country’s democratic architecture. At the federal level, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election every two years, while roughly one-third of the 100 Senate seats are contested in each midterm cycle, because senators serve staggered six-year terms.
Alongside these federal contests, many state and local elections take place, including most governorships and state legislative seats. These elections are called “midterms” because they fall in the middle of a president’s four-year term, two years after the presidential election.
Midterms are also widely treated as a referendum on the sitting president and the performance of the incumbent party across all races. Ghanaians have always been interested in US elections, and this past Tuesday was no different.
As they shared their views on the outcome, one comment from a colleague caught my attention.He asked a hypothetical question: what if the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) had recommended midterm elections as part of Ghana’s democratic architecture?
The CRC made no such recommendation, but the question deserves some attention. If a midterm is a referendum on a sitting president and the president’s party, would it help or harm a young democracy like Ghana’s?
What a midterm does in the US
As previously mentioned, midterm elections occur in the middle of a president’s four-year term, where the entire US House of Representatives and a third of the Senate face voters. This is in addition to other state and local government elections that happen during this period.
The election works as a mid-term check, and it gives voters a chance to self-correct in between presidential elections if they so desire. It sometimes produces divided government (different political parties in control of the presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives) but not always.
The case for a mid-term election
The strongest argument in favor of a midterm election is accountability. It would give voters an interim decision point instead of one verdict every four years. Since the ballot box appears to be the main accountability tool for the Ghanaian voter, making it a more regular feature could help ensure accountable governance.
A midterm could also strengthen the legislature’s hand in overseeing the executive. If it rebalanced Parliament, or even produced divided government, legislators would have more incentive and leverage to scrutinize the executive.
Midterm elections offer voters an opportunity to correct a mandate they gave a party when they feel delivery has stalled. Economic conditions, public priorities, and the president’s own performance can change a great deal after an election.
A party can squander its mandate well within the first two years, and when that happens, four years is a long time to wait for a correction, especially if the consequences worsen in the meantime.
A midterm could also make Members of Parliament more responsive. If every MP faces voters halfway through the term, they have a stronger incentive to stay in touch with constituents, listen more regularly, and respond to their concerns. It may also push MPs to resist always toeing the party line and to give more weight to their constituents’ needs.
The Case Against Midterm Elections
Elections are expensive. Parliament approved GH¢1.3 billion (2020) and GH¢786.9 million (2024) for the Electoral Commission even though there were suggestions of a potential shortfall to cover all the necessary electoral activities. A midterm would repeat this burden halfway through every term.
Ghana is a unitary state. Midterms work in America, in my opinion, partly because America is a federal state and midterm elections do not only rebalance power at the federal level but also across state and local governments.
Ghana has one level that matters, with no elected regional or local governments along party lines and a single-house legislative body. I am not sure what a Ghanaian midterm will really rebalance.
Consider the 137-137-1 outcome of the 2020 parliamentary election. It showed how adversarial parliamentary proceedings can become, and our politics has grown more polarized since.
A midterm that produced split government, with one party controlling the executive and another controlling Parliament, would be costly for governance. I foresee obstruction, less cooperation, and policy paralysis.
Sticking with the status quo
Ghanaian voters have a track record of dealing with incumbents, whether in parliamentary primaries or in general elections. Admittedly, the eight-year pattern in general elections, in which parties tend to hold power for two terms before losing it, can seem too long a wait to remove a governing party.
The real accountability gap, however, lies in parliamentary scrutiny, the enforcement of audit findings, and access to information, among other things, all of which cost far less than a national election. Ghana should strengthen the oversight it already has.
READ ALSO: Mahama’s New Economy Seeks to Turn Stability Into Jobs for Ghanaians
