Chapter one
Introduction
Background of the study
In the 21st century, democracy is the most popular system of government. This is evident in the fact that out of about 195 countries in the world 167 of them operate the democratic system of government. The iconic premiere of the western region and statesman, Obafemi Awolowo holds democracy in high esteem as he is of the position that the best system of government is democracy and other systems of government are evil (Awolowo, 1968). The accolade given to the democratic system of government makes it a phenomenon worth analyzing.
The word ‘democracy’ is derived from the Greek word ‘demokratia’ which in turn consists of two words ‘demos’ meaning people and ‘Kratia’ meaning government. As a system of government, democracy can be traced to Athens in the 5th Century B.C. where all male adult citizens were equal and possess the right and obligation to attend ‘The General Assembly’. This assembly met ten times a year to enact laws and elect executives (who were accountable for their actions) by simple majority votes (Roskin et al, 2008). Looking at the history of democracy and the African context, it will be erroneous to work with the assumption that democracy is completely alien to the pre-colonial African society. Most pre-colonial African societies had atoms of democracy and power ultimately was in the hands of the people. However no pre-colonial West African society was more democratic than the decentralized Igbo system of government in West Africa. The Igbo decentralized system of government made room for citizens to participate in decision making process than any western-style democracy (Isichei, 1977). The democratic system of government has changed and evolved over the centuries to gain different meanings and descriptions; from the direct democracy of ancient Greece to the Roman Republic (consisting of a senate and assembly) to the modern day liberal democracy which the polity is seen as a highly competitive market place of ideas and interests (Magstadt, 2009).
Like most academic concepts, democracy is devoid of a single universal definition as there is no limit to defining the concept or practice of government (Zimako, 2009). It connotes an image as well as a reality of politics for different political systems, rulers, citizens, actors and scholars (Oyovbaire, 1987). Notwithstanding the difficulty in definition, various scholars and policy makers have made attempts to conceptualize democracy.
According to Aristotle, a democracy exists whenever those who are free and are not well-off (who are in the majority) are in sovereign control of government (Aristotle, 1962). Aristotle sees democracy as a government of the common man, which usually makes up a majority of the population in a political unit. A popular and seminal definition of democracy is that proffered by Abraham Lincoln. He describes democracy as government of the people, by the people and for the people. Martin Lipset on his part sees democracy as a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials and a social mechanism which permits the largest possible part of the population to influence major decisions by choosing among contenders for political office (Lipset, 2004). This definition is limited to election and voting which is just an aspect of democracy. Philip Shively holds that democracy is beyond the election and electioneering process. It also involves the active engagement of the full population of citizens in debates over alternative policies. To him a major area of contention when looking at various democracies is the level of participation of the general population in policy debates beyond the election process (Shively, 2008). Despite the various definitions of democracy, emphasis is centered on participation of the general public in the process of governance; in the selection of political leaders and in the formulation and implementation of policies.
There are certain principles that lets one characterize a system of government as democratic. According to Becker and Ravelson, the principles of democracy include fundamental freedom and fundamental rights, regular elections, rule of law, separation of powers, the existence of an opposition, public opinion and freedom of the media (Becker and Ravelson, 2008). Following a World Bank report on Sub Sahara Africa in 1989 titled Sub-Sahara African: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, popular opinion on development sought to explore how democracy and its principles can foster development. Development in this context is in terms of socio-economic development that includes economic growth and the improvement of the lives and wellbeing of the majority of citizens in a political unit. As Naanen puts it, “development is the incremental improvement of the quality of human life. In ensuring human wellbeing, economic growth must be combined with development” (Naanen, 2015, p.5)
Upon Ghana’s independence in 1957, the democratically elected administration of Kwame Nkrumah had as its agenda the improvement of social welfare for the Ghanaian people. The government of the first republic was able to improve living conditions especially in terms of access to education, water supply,and employment and health services. Following the overthrow of democracy on 24 February, 1966 by the military, Ghana began to experience an almost continuous economic decline. The post Nkrumah economic situation witnessed a fall in real consumption per capita to one third from what it was in 1960, a drop in food production and increase in the cost of living resulted to high crime rates and corruption. The transportation, communication and public service infrastructure established by the Nkrumah administration began to decay worsening living conditions (Nwoke, 1994).
The post Nkrumah military regime resulted to a dwindling economy and living standards but however it will be a flaw to rush to the conclusion that non democratic regimes are not suited for development. This is due to the fact that both subsequent civil administrations and military regimes were unable to ameliorate the problem of underdevelopment from 1966 to 1979. Notwithstanding, on 4 June, 1979, a violent coup by a group of junior and noncommissioned officers, Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), Flt. Lt. Jerry John Rawlings took over the government in an attempt to put Ghana on the path to development. Rawlings established Special Tribunals that, secretly and without due process, tried dozens of military officers, other government officials, and private individuals for corruption, sentenced them to long prison terms and confiscated their property; and, through a combination of force and exhortation, attempted to rid Ghanaian society of corruption and profiteering. Following the removal of the corrupt elements within the ranks of the military and government, a new constitution was created in 1979. Presidential and parliamentary elections were held in June and July and the military leader, Rawlings handed over power to the newly elected President and Parliament of the Third Republic on September 24, 1979.
The new President, Dr. Hilla Limann, was a career diplomat from the north and the candidate of the People's National Party (PNP), the political heir of Nkrumah's Conventions People’s Party (CPP). Also of the 140 members of Parliament, 71 were PNP. The PNP government established the constitutional institutions and generally respected democracy and individual human rights. It failed, however, to halt the continuing decline in the economy as corruption flourished, and the gap between rich and poor widened. This situation led to the return of military rule on December 31, 1981, with Flight Lt. Rawlings once again as military head of state.
In a second attempt to improve the economy and living conditions in Ghana, Rawlings embarked on an Economic Recovery Program (ERP) with the support of the IMF and the World Bank. Through this program, Rawlings was able to contribute considerably to Ghana’s development. After a heavy decline in economic growth from 1972-