After more than three decades of uninterrupted democratic rule, there is a provocative question gaining renewed urgency on whether Ghana’s democracy has truly improved the everyday socio-economic needs of its people.
For many years, Ghana has been touted as the torchbearer and beacon of democracy in Africa. This is because the country has been able to sustain its democracy amid elections, changes in government, and even amid election disputes.
Amid these successes, a new challenge is emerging if democracy is all about elections, changing government, and peaceful transition.
In an exclusive interview with The High Street Journal, former Power Minister Dr. Kwabena Donkor offers a deeply reflective but unsettling and thought-provoking assessment of Ghana’s democracy.
He looks at the issues from the socio-economic standpoint that democracy, in itself, is not the goal. It is only valuable if it delivers real development.
Peace Alone is Not Enough
The former minister observes that one of the most celebrated achievements of Ghana’s Fourth Republic is peaceful governance or political transitions after elections. However, he maintains that this purported achievement is an incomplete success story.
Although he does not disregard the peace, he questions whether the peace alone is enough for Ghanaians.
For him, peace is of no essence if people remain poor, hungry, and excluded. He draws a stark comparison that there can be peace in a slum, but it is still a slum. Stability without progress, he implies, is not true success, but rather it is stagnation with a calm surface.
“So if all we can say is that, oh, for 32 years there has been peace, and we are hungry. Look, there can be peace in the slums, but they will still remain slums. Peace without development. Peace in poverty. Peace in poor health. There’s no peace,” he recounted.
He added, “When we set out this national objective, the objective was to develop this nation. For this nation to be respected. For this nation to be able to provide for the needs of its population. It was not for this nation to become dependent on aid.”
A Democracy Without Direction?
The former minister maintains that Ghana’s democratic system lacks a clear and long-term national development vision.
For him, instead of serving as a vehicle to reduce poverty, build a self-sustaining economy, strengthen science and technology, and create national cohesion, he believes the system has drifted into short-term thinking driven by election cycles.
In practical terms, he describes the pattern of Ghana’s democracy as elected governments spending the first year settling in and using the next two years managing and campaigning.
The final year focused almost entirely on elections. This repeating pattern leaves little room for bold, long-term transformation.
The “Talking Democracy” Problem
Dr. Donkor is particularly critical of what he calls a “talking democracy”. This he describes as a system heavy on debate but light on execution and actions.
In his view, too much time is spent on politics and not enough on deliberate, coordinated development planning.
He points to worrying trends that have virtually been entrenched in Ghana’s democracy.
He notes that universities are drifting away from science and technology toward less development-driven priorities. There is also a weak alignment between education and national economic needs, in addition to a diminishing focus on innovation and industrialization.
For him, these are not isolated issues; they are symptoms of a system that has lost its developmental focus.
“On our own continent, South Africa, Rwanda. What were the forms of government under which these countries developed? Did they develop under our talking democracy? Our four-year recycling systems. Where we spend, out of 12 hours a day, we probably spend 9 hours talking,” he queried.
Lessons from Elsewhere
The most striking part of Dr. Donkor’s argument is the comparison with countries that have transformed their economies within a generation.
He points to nations like China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Chile, Botswana, Rwanda, and South Africa.
These countries, he notes, pursued deliberate, disciplined development strategies, often prioritizing long-term national goals over short-term political cycles.
The uncomfortable question he raises is this: What did they do differently, and what is Ghana failing to do?
After 32 Years, Still Dependent, Still Unequal
Despite 32 years of democracy, Dr. Donkor highlights persistent structural challenges such as continued reliance on programmes from institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), high levels of poverty, and growing inequality.
For him, these are not just economic indicators, but evidence that Ghana’s democratic system is not delivering on its core promise.
“Even after 32 years, we are still under an IMF programme. Even after 32 years, we still have a high incidence of poverty. Even after 32 years, there are increasing signs of inequality. Then we have to re-examine our vehicle,” he emphasized.
A Call to Rethink Ghana’s Democracy
Dr. Donkor is calling for a re-examination of how Ghana’s democracy is practiced. He believes that democracy must be judged not by how long it lasts, but by what it achieves.
If it does not reduce poverty, build a strong economy, and improve lives, then, no matter how peaceful, it is falling short.
Although after 32 years, Ghana’s democracy stands as a symbol of stability in Africa, Dr Kwabena Donkor argues, stability without transformation is not enough.
The real test is not whether the country votes every four years. Dr. Donkor says it is whether those votes translate into jobs, innovation, opportunity, and dignity for ordinary citizens.
