Introduction

Representative democracy is a form of government in which citizens are afforded the opportunity through elections to elect their representatives to make decisions on their behalf. This form of democracy is based on the principle of elected officials playing intermediary roles between decision-makers and the people. This relationship forms a fine covenant that enjoins these officials to represent the best interest of the people they represent.

Overall, representative democracy provides a balance between individual rights and collective decision-making, allowing citizens to have a say in how their government operates while ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in policy-making.

Ghana’s current political system is wholly built on the democratic system of governance, with a representative democracy as its bedrock. Critical among the features of representative democracy is popular participation in the electoral process where periodic elections are held and citizens get a platform to elect their representatives.

Representative democracy is thus the nexus of Ghana’s fourth republican democratic dispensation which has had seamless transitions in about 30 years of uninterrupted democratic rule. Since 1992, the country has successfully organized eight (8) multi-party, peaceful, free, and fair elections with different phases of improvement and consolidation of the electoral processes.

The Parliament of Ghana is the representation of representative democracy, where the generality of the population collectively elects 275 Members of Parliament to represent the interests of their constituents. This institution has transitioned from an appointed Legislative Council with exclusive advisory responsibilities in the mid-19th century under the colonial administration into its current form where 275 members are elected by the citizens. The election of Members of Parliament is done concurrently with that of the President every four years with political parties in full swing participation.

Political Parties Participation in Ghana’s Parliamentary Elections

Political parties have irrevocably become an integral part of Ghana’s parliamentary democracy since the country transitioned into the Fourth Republic. By law, these parties have been created to be the gateway to Parliament with the utmost responsibility to create a vehicle for the selection of Parliamentary Candidates to stand for ultimate election into the National Assembly (Parliament).

The 1992 Constitution around which Ghana’s democratic rule is modeled guarantees various political and civil rights, including the right to form political parties, the right to participate in electoral processes, and in the governance of the country.

Accordingly, Article 55(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana guarantees the right to form a political party proclaiming that “The right to form political parties is hereby guaranteed. The Constitution further requires these political parties to engage in their internal organization by their own guidelines, but this must be done within the principles of democracy and must therefore not contravene the Constitution of Ghana.

Article 55(3) of the Constitution and the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574) provide for political parties to freely participate in shaping the political will of the people and to sponsor candidates for elections to any public office including Parliamentary Candidates. In sponsoring candidates for elections at the parliamentary level, political parties are enjoined to be mindful of the qualification and eligibility criteria set out in article 94 of the 1992 Constitution.

Methods of Selecting Parliamentary Candidates
Candidate selection is the process by which a political party decides who is legally eligible for the political party to sponsor and designate on the ballot for general elections. It is broadly argued that the candidate selection process is one of the critical functions political parties perform in representative democracies, and this process most likely reflects and defines the character of a political party and its internal distribution of power.

It is worth noting that there is no uniform process for selecting candidates across democracies. While in some jurisdictions, the state heavily regulates the process, some others are left unregulated with others with very limited regulations. For instance, in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ghana, the states do not regulate the selection process through legislation. However, the United States has an extensive regulatory regime for candidate selection while New Zealand has a flexible regulatory regime.

There are generically three methods for candidate selection across democracies. There is the all-inclusive system, the controlled inclusive system (delegate system), and the absolute exclusive system.

1. All-inclusive System: This is a system where the power to select candidates is practically decentralized, with the citizens having absolute control as to who is selected for the party to sponsor on its ticket. It is largely the case in the United States where candidate selection typically occurs by way of open primaries, in which all registered voters in a state vote directly for their preferred party candidate.


The open primaries system in the U.S. is open to all registered voters, regardless of their party or independent affiliation. This system by 2005 was adopted and employed in 20 states. Also, blanket primaries allow all registered voters to participate to enable voters to choose candidates across party lines for different offices. Note that the United States Supreme Court struck down the blanket primary system in California in the case of California Democratic Party v. Jones, which was decided in June 2000.

Also, in 1971 in Iceland, several parties adopted the open primaries which were usually conducted in some of the electoral districts, and every citizen in these districts could participate.

The other form of an all-inclusive system is where all registered members of the political party are allowed to participate in selecting candidates for the parties to sponsor. The Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), in 2001 adopted new regulations allowing all registered members to participate in the selection of its parliamentary candidates in a reform that became known as “bulela ditswe” (open to all).

Also, in Ghana, the National Democratic Congress in 2015 adopted a more inclusive method that made all registered members of the party at all branches eligible to vote to select Parliamentary Candidates. Following closely in 2019 was the All Progressives Congress (APC), one of Nigeria’s two major parties, which piloted direct primaries (in which all registered members were able to vote) in 16 states. This method although all-inclusive, the eligible voters are exclusive to “party registered members.” This reflects the closed primaries system as practiced by some states in the U.S.

Just as the all-inclusive system has its advantages principal of which is ensuring popular participation symbolic of democracy, it comes with its cutting negatives. This system can be unnecessarily cumbersome and most expensive to run. The National Democratic Congress (NDC) of Ghana, post the 2015 reforms, had to reverse to the delegate system. The objective of the NDC was to reduce vote-buying and for that matter reduce the cost of the election.

In the end, although vote-buying (monetization) was reduced to some extent, the overall cost of the elections to the party increased as per available information. Also, candidates running in the primaries of the party recruited as many party members as potential voters and even recruited from other political parties, thereby, pushing the pursuit of quantity over quality to an extreme and equally running the risk where the primaries were raided by external interests hostile to the party.

The Controlled Inclusive (Delegate System)

In between the two extreme selection processes (i.e., Absolute Inclusiveness and Absolute Exclusiveness) is the delegate system. This system although participatory and not extremely exclusive, still has some limitations with some restrictions to participation. Political parties in Ghana in the most part of the 4th Republic have adopted a controlled inclusive (delegate system), where the power to select parliamentary candidates is decentralized and consolidated in the hands of a body of electors at the basic unit of political party administration (i.e., the branch level), allowing for candidates to be selected through parliamentary primary elections. This process indeed reflects the United States closed system of selection process where a selected body is delegated to elect candidates on their behalf.

The conduct of parliamentary primaries to select candidates is thus guided by party constitutions and the election rules and guidelines the political parties may issue. As required by the Constitution of Ghana, these processes must conform to democratic principles as much as practicable. Owing to this, the New Patriotic Party provides for the election of Parliamentary Candidates in Article 11 of its Constitution. Similarly, Article 43 of the Constitution of the National Democratic Congress provides for the election of Parliamentary Candidates. These party constitutional provisions form the framework out of which specific electoral rules and guidelines are issued to direct and guide the selection process. Among others, these guidelines often reflect the following:

1. The timetable for the election;

2. The form of the election;


3. The qualification criteria for prospective candidates;

4. The fees;


5. The Electoral College.

Since the adoption of the delegate system, there have been reforms often done through a trial-and-error method in a bid to expand the electoral colleges in the two dominant political parties (i.e., the NDC and NPP) to presumably reflect the growing need for participation in the electoral process.

For instance, the New Patriotic Party set the pace by expanding its electoral college to allow for five (5) branch executives instead of one (1) as it were to vote in its parliamentary and presidential primaries in the run-up to the 2012 general elections. This saw an astronomical increase (to about 144,000) in the number of delegates forming the electoral college of the party.

Following this, the National Democratic Congress just like the Botswana Democratic Party did in 2001, adopted the open-to-all process where all card-bearing members of the party in all 6000 polling stations were eligible to vote in both presidential and parliamentary elections in 2015. In all, about 1,286,728 members were registered at the various polling stations and were thus eligible to vote.

Downsides of the Delegate System

The delegate system, with a small electorate composed of branch-level leaders of the party, is a reflection of representative democracy. To decentralize and deconcentrate power from the centre to the local level for party leaders to elect their preferred representatives is paramount in a democracy. However, this exclusive delegate system has its own downsides.

Where primary electorates are small, individual primary voters have significant leverage to extract rents from the competing aspirants in return for support. This serves as a convenient ground for creating and accentuating a client-patron relationship which ultimately reinforces vote buying.

This system with vote buying at the centre effectively selects for and attracts aspirants with the necessary financial resources and not necessarily a candidate who otherwise would have represented the people effectively. Party executives at the branch level who are privileged to be part of the electors see the exercise as a means to get remuneration other than to represent the general interest of the party members.

The delegate system overtly and covertly creates limitations to popular participation and could thus exclude some sections of people from participating in the democratic process. For instance, women have become victims of such a highly controlled and competitive selection process given how rigorous the process can be is vis a vis the fragility and vulnerability of women. Although in most cases party leaders at the centre create opportunities for women in particular by reducing the filing fees to be paid, this in itself mostly does not amount to an opportunity for women to be elected. This is one of the factors that contribute to the poor numbers of women in Ghana’s current Parliament.

Also, this system mostly breeds voter apathy, since the majority of the voters may feel betrayed because of the choices of candidates made by the selected delegates. Voter apathy in itself is a subtle means of disenfranchising eligible voters and, by extension, constraining the frontiers of democracy in general.

Another major downside is the tendency of the creation of weaker party machinery at the base. Desperate but financially resourceful aspirants may plant their puppets for convenient exploitation but not necessarily to build the base of the party. These aspirants may succeed to get themselves imposed on the people by their puppets.

Absolute Exclusive Selection System

In sharp contrast to the all-inclusive system of candidate selection is the exclusive system where a political party has an extremely centralized system of selecting candidates for onward sponsorship. With this system, a single party leader or a national party agency or committee is constituted to decide on the candidates to be selected without the approval or participation of the local party members or delegates (selectors).

In European Parliament, the members of Parliament are elected with two votes; first for a direct candidate and the second for a party list in each state as may be determined by the respective parties. The party list is always prepared by the political parties and submitted to the national election machinery for onward election. Where the list is closed as practiced in countries like Angola, Argentina, Spain, etc. the power of selecting candidates is exclusive to the party agency or committee.

Prior to the democratization of the candidate selection process in the 1996 election, Israel's ultra-orthodox religious party’s candidate selection in the early years was purely by nomination by a closed inner circle of party leaders (Council of Rabbis) or a single leader (Rabbi). Even as late as 1992, the selection process of the Meretz alliance in Israel (i.e., the three “dovish” parties: Ratz, Mapam and Shinui) was conducted solely by the central committees of the three constituent parties.

This system although extremely exclusive which practically frustrates popular participation and may thus engineer voter apathy to some extent, is cost-effective and eliminates vote-buying completely.

Conclusion and the Way Forward

The three selection methods of candidates as assessed above present a general overview of how political parties as private entities exercise power in the bid to determine how the legislature operates. The absolute inclusive system presents a fine opportunity for popular participation where the vast majority of voters will have the opportunity to participate in electing their candidate.

This comes in two forms: an open system where voters (not necessarily registered party members) are offered the opportunity to elect candidates; or a closed primaries system which is exclusive to all registered members of the political party. Given Ghana’s economic and political development, it is practically impossible for this cumbersome and extremely expensive system to be practiced by her political parties at all times with strict adherence to democratic ideals.

The delegate system although has come a long way as a viable and reliable vehicle for selecting both Presidential and Parliamentary candidates for political parties to sponsor for ultimate election into government, it still has its attendant challenges. It has inadvertently encouraged vote-buying and limited popular participation in Ghana. Some pundits described it as more expensive than even running for general elections.

The exclusive system of selection where the selection is done by a committee or party agency so constituted to do so can be safely described as undemocratic, since the decision of selection of candidates is left to either an individual or committee with some guidelines to follow. The reality with Ghana’s current dispensation is that political parties will largely sketch a democratic path that they rarely follow in selecting parliamentary candidates.

In order to control monetization (vote-buying) of the election of parliamentary candidates, and avoid the overstretching of the party machinery in organizing election, it will be reasonable to suggest that the exclusive selection process (i.e., appointment/nomination of candidates) can be refined with effective legislation to still meet the democratic requirement been pursued by the 1992 Constitution.

After all, except the NDC and the NPP with the capacity to be organizing such periodic elections, almost all the smaller political parties in Ghana adopt the centralized system of selecting Parliamentary Candidates. Although democratic ideals would encourage decentralization at the expense of concentration, a well-structured exclusive system for the nomination of Parliamentary Candidates by party caucuses/agencies/committees will be the best to cure the growing overspending by aspirants. The expensive nature of the delegate system as being practiced currently in Ghana undoubtedly creates the breeding ground for weak governments and corrupt leaders to start with.