The Institute of Economic Affairs [IEA] has been consistent in its call for an end to what it describes as “Winner Takes All” system.
The latest call has come from the IEA’s eleven-member Committee. According to Justice Emile Short, a member of the Committee, the Winner Takes All syndrome is one of the main factors responsible for the growing polarization of the Ghanaian society. It [the polarization] is hurting the nation’s development.
According to the Tuesday June 10, 2014 issue of the Daily Guide, Justice Emile Short, in his address to the media on behalf of the Committee, noted that despite several calls for the country to do away with the Winner Takes All system, no constitutional amendment has been proposed by the Constitutional Review Committee [CRC].
I have tried to follow various discussions on the issue and I must confess that I am yet to appreciate what the call is all about.
The ”Winner Takes All” is generally said to have originated from the British Constitutional System. Among numerous queries that have been raised in the study of British Constitution is the democratic basis of a system that deprives significant minorities of representation.
For instance how representative is a system that provides for representation in Parliament by a candidate who wins – on the basis of “first to pass the pole” – with forty per cent [40%] of votes in a constituency? Could the remaining sixty percent [60%] be said to be represented in Parliament? A response to such a concern was the introduction of proportional representation. In some cases, every candidate who wins more than thirty percent [30%] of votes is deemed to be elected to sit in Parliament.

I am not sure if this is the kind of “Winner takes all” system the IEA is campaigning against. The IEA needs to explain further what it is advocating.
It may be helpful to explain the various avenues for appointment into the public services of Ghana. On a loose interpretation of the public service, the opportunities lie with election to Parliament, appointment into Governing Boards of state institutions, appointment of Chief Executives and recruitment/appointment into the Civil Service/public service.

Is the call by the IEA for proportional representation in Parliament. Or is the IEA saying that the President should be deprived of the authority to select members of Board or appoint Chief Executive to public institutions. On the later, it may be instructive to be guided by Article 95 of the Constitution which requires the President to appoint public servants in accordance with the advice of the Governing Board given in consultation with the Public Services Commission.
Does the IEA consider appointment onto Board of Governors as part of the Winner takes All system? What will be the alternative that will not create room for a Board composed of people opposed to the Government by virtue of open political affiliation to deliberately work against the Government. And these institutions are to implement policies of the Government.
Or is the IEA saying that appointment into the public service, especially the Civil Service, based on Winner Takes All System.
The IEA needs to explain its call to the understanding of people like me.
If I could digress a bit. What is agitating against nationalism/patriotism is the fact that politics has now become a profession. The traditional notion is that politics provides an avenue for experienced people to contribute, through membership of representative bodies, their experience for the development of society. Unfortunately these days, university graduates move straight into parliament (national legislature) without any work experience. Unlike the United States where politicians out of office are offered opportunities to share their experience with young ones at the universities, the door is closed to that in Ghana. Which company is willing to employ such a politician when he loses his seat in Parliament? Since politics has become his profession and he lives by politics – he finds it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that he is out of power. He is consistent in his efforts to be heard publicly and remain an alternate to the current Member of Parliament. People cannot set aside their party political allegiance and rally around the Member of Parliament or the President. For the four years, the loser is loud, seeing to subvert public confidence in government.
I wish the IEA will address the real issues and stop skirting around with the unexplained Winner Takes All system.


AN k ANALYST