UNIVERSITY OF GHANA

2007-2008 INTER-FACULTY LECTECTURES

THURSDAY 24 APRIL 2008

GHANA’S 1979 AND 2000 PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF ELECTIONS REVISITED: LESSONS FOR ELECTION 2008

Alexander K. D. Frempong

[This lecture was delivered at the Prof. K. A. Busia Building at the University of Ghana, Legon, Accra on 24 April 2008, eight months ahead of Ghana’s closely-fought presidential election which resulted in a less-than-half (0.5%) percent run-off victory for opposition NDC challenger, John Mills]

INTRODUCTION

Opening Statement

Prof Chairman, let me begin by stating the obvious: In December 2008, Ghanaians would be going to the polls again. The significance of Election 2008 however cannot be overemphasized. It would clock for Ghana ‘five elections-plus-two-civilian-to-civilian handovers’ which would be a major improvement over the magical ‘three elections-plus-one-to-one-civilian handover’ threshold of democratic consolidation. For the contesting parties, particularly the dominant New Patriotic Party (NPP) and national Democratic Congress (NDC), the stakes are even higher. After two terms of office each, each of them is yearning to score the ‘winning goal’ as it were, and make history either as the first to win three consecutive terms or the first to recapture power after two terms in the political wilderness. And with the discovery of oil, even the least popular and worst organized party is dreaming of annexing power.

More significant for our purposes here, Election 2008 has a potential for a run-off; not least because the incumbent president is not contesting and the number of presidential candidates are likely to be higher than in 2004. Only two elections in Ghana’s history have ended in run-offs. The first, in 1979, took place after nearly a decade of a series of military rule; and the second, in 2000, was at the end of the two terms of a civilian government with military antecedence. Despite the differences in the historical contexts, both elections have useful lessons (individually and collectively) on the impact of divided political front, burdens of incumbency, complacency, electoral re-engineering, and swing voting, on electoral outcomes.

Against the background of a brief analysis of elections, electoral systems and the run-off system, this work examines the contexts and dynamics of the two presidential run-offs, outlines their similarities and differences, and more significantly, distill lessons for Election 2008.

Elections, Electoral Systems and the Run-Off System

Elections

Elections are arguably the defining feature of any democracy. First, they provide a peaceful means for societies to channel competition for political power and confer authority upon those elected. Second, elections provide significant new opportunities for citizen involvement in public affairs. By casting votes to select who will represent them in public office, citizens express preferences about the policies those representatives will pursue. They are also an opportunity to engage civic organizations and citizens in democratic politics through voter education, election monitoring, policy research, and advocacy. Third, elections offer a means of establishing accountability for actions of leaders while in office, provides an avenue for determining leadership succession and a catalyst for political change in a society (http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/elections_essay.html)

Increasingly, fair elections have become a critical requirement for governments to have legitimacy in the eyes not only of their own citizens but also of the international community. Electoral legitimacy and outcomes, in turn, greatly affect the prospects for effective governance (Ibid).

Of course, genuine democracy requires substantially more than democratic elections. Even countries that hold reasonably competitive elections may lack constitutional limits on governmental power, deprive citizens of basic rights, or lack tolerance of religious and/or ethnic minorities. Indeed, in some circumstances elections can sharpen ethnic differences or exacerbate communal tensions. To build genuine democracy, therefore, societies must foster a democratic culture and the rule of law in addition to holding democratic elections. Nevertheless, elections remain essential to democracy and to legitimate government (Ibid).

Electoral Systems

Electoral systems, which determine exactly how citizens can make their preferences known, vary widely around the world. Each election must have rules that determine who can become a candidate and how votes are translated into seats. Elections for executive offices such as the president may be held in a single or more than one round; and legislators may be elected from defined constituencies or on proportional basis of a nationwide ballot. In some systems, voters choose individuals; in others, they vote for political parties. Many countries however use mixed systems that combine some or all of these characteristics. The details of an electoral system can substantially affect proportionality, voter participation, the prospect for genuinely representative constituencies, and the range of participating and winning candidates and parties (Ibid).

Thus the way in which the electoral system translates the preferences of citizens into authority may influence the degree of public support for the democratic system itself. It is therefore of utmost importance that electoral systems be seen as fair and as fulfilling public expectations.

The Run-off System

One electoral mechanism that aims at ensuring that the eventual winner has the support of an absolute majority of voters is the run-off system. Run-off voting is sometimes used as a generic term to describe any system involving a number of rounds of voting, with eliminations after each round. But when a run-off is restricted to two rounds, it is called the second ballot or the two-round system. In the first or preliminary round, parties put up candidates and the voters vote whoever they prefer. If any candidate reaches the election threshold (usually fifty percent-plus-one of the total votes cast) in the first round he is declared elected. Otherwise, another round of election (a second ballot) is held within a few weeks between the two top candidates. Whoever receives the most votes in the second round becomes the ultimate winner (http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Runoff_voting ).

Polling for the two ballots takes place on separate days. In the second round, voters are entirely free to change the candidate they vote for, even if their preferred candidate has not yet been eliminated. And because there are only two candidates, one is most likely to achieve an absolute majority. Run-off voting is widely used around the world for the election of legislative bodies and directly elected presidents. It is used in France, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Finland, Portugal, Romania, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system ).

Like all social systems/ human institutions, run-off voting has its merits and demerits. On the positive side, it ensures that the ultimate winner obtains an overall majority of the votes cast. It is thus more representative and increases the legitimacy of the winner. Run-off voting encourages candidates to appeal to a broad cross section of voters. This is because, in order to win an absolute majority in the second round, it is necessary for a candidate to win the support of voters whose favourite has been eliminated. Also, losing candidates often recommend to their supporters as to who to vote for in the second round. Thus eliminated candidates are still able to influence the results of the election. This influence leads to political bargaining and policy concessions to the less successful candidates. Because it encourages conciliation and negotiation in these ways run-off voting is in a sense most deliberative. Closely related, the system increases the viability of third parties which may become the ‘kingmakers’. It therefore ensures the flourishing of the multiparty system. What is more, a voter whose vote is wasted on a candidate who loses in the first round can make a difference in the second (http://www.billda.com/the-case-for-a-two-round-system).

On the negative side, the run-off system, by its very nature, requires that the elections must be conducted twice and results in a longer electoral process and increases political uncertainty between the first and second ballots. The system brings also additional costs to all stakeholders. It requires a second round of campaigning on the part of the contestants and their parties and extra resources for the electoral authorities. It also imposes a greater burden on the voters, may induce voter fatigue and lower turnout at the second ballot. Above all, the so-called absolute majority obtained by the winner of the run-off is an artificial one. The fact is that at the end of the first round, the eventual winner had the support of less that half the voter population (http://www.billda.com/the-case-for-a-two-round-system).

A number of popular myths or conventional wisdom exists about run-off elections. The first is that voter turnout tends to drop in the second ballot. This is largely because many voters, particularly those whose candidates have been eliminated, may simply be indifferent to the restricted choices offered at the second ballot and thus abstain. But research has revealed instances where voter turnout at the second ballot has exceeded the first (as in the case of the 1979 run-off). Second, incumbents forced into run-offs tend to lose ultimately. This is not least because the apparent invincibility of the incumbent is broken. But should the first round throw up a group/candidate with extreme views, the losers may regroup behind the moderate incumbent. Third, the front runner in the first round enters the second ballot as a top-dog and may go on to win again partly because of the bandwagon effect but complacency on the part of the frontrunner can turn the scales (Wright 1989: 385 & 390).

How have these dynamics of the run-off system played out in the Ghanaian electoral experience?

ELECTIONS IN GHANA: A HISTORICAL SKETCH

Elections have been part of the politics of Ghana (the then Gold Coast) since 1925 when the elective principle was first introduced by the Guggisberg Constitution. But at that initial stage, the franchise was very limited in terms of property qualification and geographical coverage.

Within the six years preceding Ghana’s independence in 1957, there were three competitive elections in 1951, 1954 and 1956. The most outstanding feature of those elections was the Convention People’s Party (CPP) dominance. It secured 34 out of the 38 seats in 1951 and over seventy out of 104 in 1954 and 1956. The parties that opposed the CPP in those elections merged in 1957 to form the United Party (UP)[1] and created the UP tradition in opposition to the CPP/Nkrumahist tradition.

Elections increasingly became less competitive under Nkrumah in the run up to the formal declaration of the one party system in 1964. The 1960 presidential election, for example, was, to all intents and purposes, a farce (Boahen 1975: 211).[2] At the parliamentary level the legislature existing at independence was allowed to continue as the first parliament under the First Republic for another five-year term. By 1965, Nkrumah had become a life- president and instead of a parliamentary election under the one party system, names of MPs were announced over the radio (Frempong 2007: 59).

After a three-year interlude following the 1966 coup, the ruling National Liberation Council (NLC) conducted elections in August 1969. The CPP was disqualified and there was massive victory for the UP reincarnate, the K. A. Busia-led Progress Party, won 105 out of 140 seats. The PP was cut short in January 1972 after 27 months into its five-year term, followed by a seven year spell of military regimes.

The 1979 parliamentary and presidential elections took place in the heat of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) house cleaning exercise following the June 4 Uprising. They resulted in the reemergence of the Nkrumahists under the banner of the People’s National Party (PNP). In December 1981, another Rawlings-led coup curtailed electoral politics for another decade.

Since the acrimonious transition elections of 1992 that ushered in the Fourth Republic, Ghana has witnessed three generally peaceful and relatively free, fair and competitive elections in 1966, 2000 and 2004. Election 2000 led to a smooth turnover of power from the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to the New Patriotic Party (NPP). As earlier indicated only the 1979 and 2000 elections went into run-offs

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL RUN-OFF

Ghana’s 1979 Third Republican and 1992 Fourth Republican Constitutions adopted the second ballot system in electing the president in case of an inconclusive presidential poll. As indicated below, the two constitutional provisions (Article 49 of the 1979 Constitution and Article 63 of the 1992 Constitution) are similar to a large extent. Both provide for more than fifty percent of the votes cast to win in the first round; and a second ballot to be held within twenty one-days after the first between the top two candidates;

The only major difference is in the unlikely context where the two candidates in the round-off obtain equal number of votes. In the case of the 1979 Constitution, Parliament was to break the tie through ‘secret ballot without prior debate’ (Article 49(9)). But by Article 63(8) of the 1992 Constitution, “another election shall be held within twenty-one days after the election ….’ (See Box 1).

Box 1: Provisions on Presidential Run-Off in the 1979 and 1992 Constitutions

1979
Article 49 (3) A person shall not be elected as President of Ghana unless at the presidential election the number of votes cast in his favour is more than fifty per centum of the total number of valid votes cast at the election.
(4) Where at a presidential election there are more than two candidates and no candidate obtains the number or percentage of votes specified in clause (3) of this article a second election shall be held within twenty-one days after the previous election.
(5)The candidates for a presidential election held under clause (4) of this article shall be the two candidates who obtained the two highest numbers of voters of votes at the previous election.
(6) Where at a presidential election three or more candidates obtain the two highest numbers of votes referred to in clause (5) of this article and unless there are withdrawals such that only two candidates remain Parliament shall, within one week after the presidential election, select two of such persons to be candidates at the second election to be held under clause (4) of this article.
(7) A person qualified to be a candidate for a presidential election under clause (5) of this article or for selection to be a candidate by Parliament under clause (6) of this article may, by writing under his hand, withdraw his candidature at any time before the date of the selection by parliament or the date of such election.
(8) For the selection of candidates under clause (6) of this article, parliament shall vote by secret ballot and without prior debate.
(9)Where after a second presidential election held under clause (4) of this article the two candidates obtain an equal number of votes, parliament shall elect one of the two candidates as President by secret ballot without prior debate.
1992
Article 63(3), A person shall not be elected as President of Ghana unless at the presidential election the number of votes cast in his favour is more than fifty percent of the total valid votes cast at the election.
(4) Where at the presidential election there are more than two candidates and no candidate obtains the number or percentage of votes specified in clause (3) of this article a second election shall be held within twenty-one days after the previous election.
(5) The candidates for a presidential election held under clause (4) of this article shall be the two candidates who obtained he two highest numbers of votes at the previous election.
(6) Where at the presidential election three or more candidates obtain the two highest numbers referred to in clause (5) of this article, then unless there are withdrawals such that only two candidates remain, another election shall be held within twenty-one days after the previous election at which the candidates who obtained the two highest numbers of votes shall, subject to any withdrawals, be only candidates and the same process shall, subject to any withdrawal, be continued until a President is elected.
(7) A presidential candidate under clause (5) or (6) of this article may, by writing under his hand, withdraw his candidature at any time before the election.
(8) If after a second presidential election held under clause (4) of this article the two candidates obtained an equal number of votes, then, notwithstanding any withdrawal, another election shall be held within twenty-one days after the election at which the two candidates shall be the only candidates and the same process shall, subject to any withdrawal, be continued until a president is elected.
Source: Ghana’s 1979 and 1992 Constitutions

THE 1979 ELECTIONS