Relationship between political parties and governments: Challenges and opportunities for reforms

Introduction

Political party politics has grown to become an omnibus vehicle that expresses and aggregates the diverse ideals of citizens in democracies across global political systems. They have effectively provided an enduring framework for multi-partyism and contributed immensely to political socialisation by providing multiple systems that generate and sift information to assist citizens in forming political opinions. In effect, they facilitate popular participation and help convert citizen preferences through voting. It is worth noting that partyism in its current form happened more than seamlessly. It practically jolted through an uneven process to form its existing stable template for most democracies. For instance, in early American political history, the Federalists were disparaged in favour of no-partyism and strongly advocated for a strong central government. The Federalists’ position outraged their Anti-Federalists, who mounted spirited opposition. The struggle between these two factions ultimately resulted in the rapid evolution of political parties, which may be considered the inventive American response to political conflict. Today, prided as the leading democracy, the US has two strong political forces (Democrats and Republicans) with other “smaller parties” running alongside them.

In Ghana, just like her counterparts in Sub-Saharan Africa who attained Independence through nationalist movements and party activism, the single party (one-party state) was favoured in the formative stages after Independence to stem discordant factional alignments as its proponents contended. Effectively, the reason for the turn of events in the early stages of independent Ghana was partly because of the spontaneous emergence of ethnic, religious and regional-based interest groups, which hastily grew into becoming political parties.

To get political parties working to oil the wheels of democracy, the type of leadership these parties front is as essential as their existence. Indeed, the kind of leadership political parties maintain will invariably determine and affect the type of government a country is likely to have. This is the case in any form of political system; parliamentary, presidential or hybrid.

The Role of Political Parties in Parliamentary Systems

The Parliamentary System of government is simply a government with a dual leadership structure; the Head of State (the figurehead representative of the state and its citizens) and the head of government (the political leader of a government) who derive their power and legitimacy from Parliament, and constrained in different ways, with its survival depending on retaining the confidence of Parliament. Typically, its freedom of action is limited by the need to sustain a coalition between parties that have agreed to share the task of governing in times when a single party cannot secure a majority to form a government. The Parliamentary System is modeled around constitutional monarchies like the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, and Canada, among others.

Fundamental to the parliamentary system is that executive power emanates and ends in Parliament. The life of a government is therefore inextricably linked to the ability of the political party or coalition of parties that form the government to maintain control of the Parliament. The party leadership is undoubtedly consequential to parliamentary republics to the extent that in almost all such systems, the party’s leader ultimately becomes the head of the executive branch (i.e. Prime Minister or Chancellor). For instance, except for Helmut Schmidt, every Chancellor of post-war Germany has served as the leader of the party, as has every recent Prime Minister of Australia, Canada, Israel, Spain and the United Kingdom. This is how central political leadership is in a parliamentary system. To this extent, most countries like Germany legislate that party leaders should be selected through a vote of delegates at a party conference to give effect to shades of multiple interests and wishes.

In practical terms, party leaders in parliamentary systems are influential because they largely control the legislature and the government. On the legislature, the parties virtually structure their everyday work, from purely organisational matters, such as where legislators sit in the assembly (front, middle and or as backbenchers), to the most crucial activity like legislative votes on critical policies and decisions, in line with the ideologies of the parties. And in government, parties are central in building the ruling coalition, defining policy priorities and balancing power within the executive, whether among coalition parties or between individual ministers. A case in point is the office of party president in Belgium, which is generally recognised as the most critical position in the party and the most powerful one in Belgian politics, with discretionary powers to select the party’s ministers. They equally play a central role in the negotiations to form coalition governments after the elections.

To demonstrate how party and government are inseparable bedfellows in the parliamentary system, the Parliament of New Zealand passed the Electoral Integrity Amendment Act, 2001 to maintain proportionality within the Parliament. Also, the Act largely formalised and institutionalised party discipline, holding MPs legally accountable to their parliamentary parties with significant sanctions. This strengthens party accountability which individual parliamentarians cannot depart from.

The key to the system’s stability is the party discipline that turns the cabinet into the master of the legislature rather than its servant. The governing party spans the cabinet and the legislature, ensuring the domination of the parliamentary agenda. The cabinet is officially the top committee of state, but it is also an unofficial meeting of the party’s leaders. As long as senior party figures remain sensitive to the views of other Members of Parliament, they can control the legislature. The party uses the Whip’s Office to ensure that MPs vote as its leaders require. In a robust party system such as Britain, a member who shows less Independence is likely to win promotion. In extreme cases, MPs are thrown out of their party for dissent. They are unlikely to be re-elected by constituents for whom a party label is still vital.

Sometimes a crucial decision as to the replacement of the Prime Minister is made exclusively by the top hierarchy of party leaders without regard to the voters or Parliament. For example, in 2007 in the United Kingdom, the selection of the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to replace Tony Blair was taken three days earlier at a special conference of the Labour Party hierarchy. The succession was neither decided by voters nor by parliamentary majority members backing the Labour government in Westminster. Also, in 2010, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, was replaced by Julia Gillard. Here too, the choice of the new Prime Minister was not decided by voters or in Parliament but rather through a closed-door, internal process of the party’s parliamentary caucus.

The prominent features of the Parliamentary system of government include:

• Dual but separate powers and leadership (i.e. Head of government and Head of State);
• The leader of the majority party in Parliament becomes the head of government;
• Political parties have direct control of the government;
• The government is formed out of Parliament (cabinet government) except in Sweden, where the dual mandate (MP and Minister) is not allowed.

Political Party Leadership within the Presidential System of Government

The presidential system of government is a form of constitutional rule in which a single Chief Executive (President) governs using the authority derived from popular election alongside an independent legislature. The election to choose the President usually takes the form of a direct vote of the people, limiting the number of terms a President can serve. Unlike most Prime Ministers/Chancellors in the parliamentary system of government, the President directs the government and serves as the ceremonial head of state, implying the President wields both executive and formal powers. The President makes appointments to other key government institutions, such as the heads of government departments. However, some may be subject to confirmation by the legislature. The President and Legislature are elected for a fixed term; neither can dissolve the other, giving each institution some autonomy.

The presidential system of government dominates in the Americas. It is also found in many African countries, such as Nigeria, Togo, and Tanzania. The particular case of the United States is modelled around the representative system and, as such, provides important insights into how the presidential system works. The framers of the United States Constitution intended to create an office that could both make decisions and be prevented from accumulating too much power. They equally wanted to insulate the office from influence by the excitable masses, so they created an Electoral College within which each state had a specific number of votes, which, in most cases, went to the candidate who won the most votes in each state. Controversially, a presidential candidate can win the popular vote but lose in the College, as Al Gore did with his defeat by George W. Bush in the 2000 elections. This distinguishes the US system from the other Presidential systems where citizens directly elect the Presidents, except in South Africa, Burma and Botswana.

In the case of South Africa, Burma and Botswana, there is an exciting variation in the architecture of the Presidential system of government. Instead of being elected by a direct national vote by the people, the President is elected by members of the legislature. This makes the South African, Burmese and Botswanan Presidents more like Prime Ministers in a parliamentary system, mainly since the President is usually head of the largest party in the legislature. However, the South African President is both head of state and head of government. In the case of South Africa, the President is limited to two 5-year terms and is required to be a Member of Parliament to qualify and must resign from the legislature upon election as President. The survival of the President and government in the Presidential system is independent of party numbers in the legislature, and the President is tied to a national constituency. In contrast, legislature members are elected from local districts/constituencies.

At the heart of the presidential system is the Independence of the President and government from the party. Even if the party can influence any decision, it is usually done unofficially and behind the scenes, unlike in Belgium, where the party president practically appoints ministers and controls the government from outside.

Parties in the presidential system play external roles. They undertake their internal organisations independent of state interference, sponsor candidates on their tickets and design policies to campaign with. The President in office will be expected to implement the guidelines as the party designed. Still, the discretion as to the mode of implementation is mainly at the behest of the President. Although the President under this system makes his appointments in consultation with the party, it is only in some cases the President is obliged to do things within the confines of the party’s dictates.

Unlike the parliamentary system, where a prime minister can be removed from office as a result of a vote of no confidence and can usually call new elections before the entire term of a legislature has run its course, there is a fixed term for Presidents in the presidential system except for exceptional circumstances where some influential Presidents amend or change their constitutions to enable them to run beyond the term limits as it was in the case of Togo in 2019 where the constitutional provisions on term limits were amended to allow for President Faure Gnassingbe to run for two more terms.

In effect, the political party leadership under the Presidential system of government has some control and powers over the government it forms. Still, these powers are less extensive than those enjoyed by party leaders under the Parliamentary system.

Political Parties in Ghana within the Four Republics

Political Parties have a checked history in Ghana, with their roots extending to the decolonisation campaign waged by the few merchants, intellectuals and people in business on the Gold Coast. And since the formative stages of political party activism in the late 1940s, the two main cleavages (i.e. the UGCC and the CPP) have dominated the space, surviving unwavering turbulence to maintain reasonably consistent ideological formulations and stable aligners.

The United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) was the first major party, with its origins in the Aborigines Rights Protection Society (1897) and the Congress of British West Africa (1920). The UGCC was organised in 1946 to achieve “independence in the shortest possible time through legitimate and constitutional means”. The principal leader was J. B. Danquah, who was later succeeded by Dr Kofi Busia, a sociologist who subsequently led Ghana’s Second Republic. The two represented a well-off, highly trained, and sizable indigenous group. Their cleavage has been watermarked the Danquah-Busia tradition, redressed as the New Patriotic Party in today’s Ghana.

The second political cleavage congregated around Kwame Nkrumah and his Convention Peoples Party (CPP) – a breakaway from the UGCC, with their “independence now” mantra. Its strategy mobilised the grievant interests of workers, women, servicemen, and school leavers. The populist ideals of Kwame Nkrumah set the bounds for recruiting well-trained leaders. Still, they hardly reflected the upper-class links of the UGCC. Kwame Nkrumah’s participant-observer role in the African-American civil rights struggle, participating in Harlem demonstrations, meeting activists like W. A.  Du Bois and Marcus Garvey and his links to the African and Caribbean students and leftist groups in interwar Europe gave him a particular radical and socialist orientation.

The current party scene in Ghana primarily reflects the two traditional cleavages mentioned above. The two big-tent political parties with national appeal and comprehensive platforms are the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the first Prime Minister in office between March 1952 and March 1957 and maintained same after Independence until 1960, was subsequently elected as the first President for the First Republic after Ghana transitioned from a Constitutional Monarchy to form an Executive Presidency. To Nkrumah, African socialism retained the salient ideology and, with all intent and purposes, represented an available tool to socialize Ghanaians with the values of the modern state and a means of exercising effective political control. With effective political authority, the state is responsible for marshalling and redistributing resources to meet the people’s needs. This informed the subsequent decision to use political parties as a rallying point to unite Ghanaians around one vision.

The proposed amendments to the Constitution in the January 1964 Referendum gave a twist to political party leadership and its role in national affairs. The declaration of a one-party state heralded the moment, indicating that the CPP was almost equivalent to the government. In effect, the CPP became the centre of affairs, with its leadership transitioning into government since Parliamentary aspirants for all constituencies were appointed instead of elected. The sudden death of multi-party democracy became a more significant challenge, and this increasingly became the boiling point and the nexus around which the 1966 coup was justifiably executed.

The inception of the Second Republic in 1969, in a multi-party parliamentary election, came with a different feature of partyism – a Parliamentary System with Kofi Abrefa Busia’s Progress Party winning 105 seats out of the 140 seats contested and formed the government with a subsequent Presidential election through an Electoral College system. Edward Akuffo-Addo was elected the ceremonial President. Here too, political parties, just like the case in other parliamentary systems, as reviewed above, became the way to governance because the leader of the Progress Party became the leader of the government. The ills of the past (under Kwame Nkrumah) revisited the present. Despite the broad popular support garnered at its inception and strong foreign connections, the Busia government fell victim to sustained dissents which eventually collapsed the second republic in a bloodless coup in 1972. Although multi-party democracy featured in the second republic, the reason for the coup was that most of the government decisions reflected party interests rather than the broader national interest.

The Nkrumahists returned to the Third Republic. Their PNP won 62 per cent, and the Danquah-Busiasts, as the PFP, won 30 per cent. The Third Republic was short-lived; hence, much needed to be experienced in the significant roles political parties played at both government and intra-party levels. The “Rawlings’ revolution” of 1982 was followed by people’s and workers’ defence committees that dispensed immediate justice and redistribution, replicating Nkrumahist populist and statist conceptions. Named the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and later the Provisional National Defense Council (PNDC), the immediate appeal of his government was to the lower echelons of the armed forces, workers, radical intellectuals and the peasantry. The PNDC then gave birth to the Fourth and, perhaps, the final republic in 1992. This renewed the faces of the two cleavages, the UGCC/NPP and the CPP/NDC. The formation and recruitment of the leadership for the PNDC and, for that matter, the NDC was hugely influenced by the past recruitment patterns of the Nkrumahist. Among the privileged recruits were those affiliated with that military regime and various other radical intellectuals, unionists, students of the “Rawlings’ revolution,” and technocrats with little political experience.

Similarly, the 1988 local government system brought traditional leaders and young aspirants into the Rawlings camp (PNDC) with 110 District Chief Executives, a third of the district assemblies, and ten ministers coordinating regional coordinating councils. This gave the NDC its political colouration and orientation in today’s Ghana. Indeed, political party leadership played a central role in the inception of the Fourth Republic, dominated by the NDC in the first two elections.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the Danquah-Busia tradition (i.e. the NPP) was under more duress during the PNDC era, operating as an opposition party. This class could not technically recruit to get a functioning political party. It sustained its leaders and recruits through several long-standing autonomous professional organisations and the university professors, the Ghana Bar Association and the Association of Recognized Professional Bodies. However, NPP recruitment was weakened by the long military repression, leaving more ground to cover when the Fourth Republic began. Nevertheless, the party also attracted its share of the new and highly educated technocrats while maintaining its alliances with traditional leaders. These bodies formed a considerable force in government to complement the NPP to maintain control and consolidate governance.

Into the Future: Experiences and Opportunities for Reforms.

The life of political parties is very critical in every democracy. To this end, the four republics gave rise to an overriding objective of political parties: to capture political office through elections. Political parties in Ghana over this period aggregated groups to simplify an often bewildering plethora of interests. They mobilise voters, package and transmit demands, guide the policy option processes, and form broad alignments, cross-cutting cleavages, pacts, coalitions, and mergers. However, the records suggest political party leadership ineffectiveness and little consolidation. Thus, the Ghanaian experience has yet to have a clear definition of political party lenders’ designation and their commandeering role in governance.

Structure and resource organisation, money, candidate recruitment, and mobilisation of volunteers are fundamental to party success. A viable press is essential sometimes to develop inaccessible information, generate publicity, and direct public discourse. Generally, political parties have been weak because they were co-opted or displaced by personalist leaders, as was the case with Nkrumah and his CPP, Busia and his PP. After Independence, many structures were distinct from government and recruitment to party leadership needed to be more present. Even now, with the resurgence of democratic parties, the organisational capacity of these parties remains tenuous.

Cumulatively though, political parties in the four republics have had a fair share of their involvement in shaping Ghana’s democracy and providing platforms for popular participation and good governance. Inevitably, the challenges abound and are conspicuous, ranging from funding gaps and uncertainties to independence from the control of incumbent government and general autonomy. These have had a sustained impact on the kind of leadership these parties have offered. This notwithstanding, political parties have played a significant role in the formation and running of governments, with many, if not all, leaders at various levels forming part of governments (at board levels, among others). At the very least, they exercise some control in Parliament through the whip system. However, this is only done with a related interest of the government or other interest groups.

In this current republic, Ghana has an excellent opportunity to fine-tune its democratic arrangements to make political parties effective and provide meaningful leadership at all levels. The conversation around legislation to create a funding mechanism for political parties to ensure some form of Independence is ongoing, and this should be given the needed attention. If enacted, these legislations will undoubtedly give the parties the power to be independent and redefine the leadership they ultimately offer. The current governance system, where executive power subtly subsumes political party strength and existence, is regrettably the most contributory factor to the ongoing weaknesses of the political parties. Parties must be treated as public entities as defined by the 1992 constitution and, as such, must operate independently of government.

Proposed Guidelines for reforms

As intimated earlier, political parties play a significant role in the sustenance of every democracy; they represent different ideals, interests and values of citizens. They create a primary vehicle for representation, policy drive and the ultimate exercise of power. For political party leaders to be effective therefore,  they must conduct themselves in a way that will enable them to win public trust, win and consolidate power and implement policies and programs that reflect the wishes and overall aspirations of the citizens they represent. They must also be guided by important leadership principles in their operations if they are to deliver a more effective leadership capable of securing and consolidating political power. Some of these principles, which have evolved from best practice and have stood the test of time, are presented in no particular order in the following key points:

1. Collaboration and Consensus-Building: Political party leaders should endeavour to build consensus and effective collaboration amongst key stakeholders including party members, coalition partners and other relevant non-state actors who influence and impact decision-making processes. To get the best outcomes in decision-making, political party leaders should create an environment that encourages open but productive dialogue, active listening, and constructive debate to reach informed decisions. Some considerable inspiration can be drawn from the example of the Aam Aadmi Party of India practices. To achieve effective collaboration and consensus-building, the Aam Aadmi Party in India adopted a decentralized municipal budgeting process, with citizens’ direct participation in budget allocations. This allows the citizens and other interest groups to freely participate in resource allocation. In much the same way, the Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, as part of collaborating with various actors, put in place a mechanism that accommodates broad citizen engagement by allowing both members and non-member experts to sit in its internal policy committees. Consensus-building and effective collaboration creates room for healthy partnerships and ultimately result in good governance.
2. Policy Formulation and Implementation: Effective party leaders as much as practicable must lead the policy formulation, implementation and evaluation processes, and this must be done to reflect and align with the party’s principles and goals. As the chief executor of the social contract between citizens and political parties in government (especially in parliamentary systems), they must also oversee the implementation of these policies, monitor progress and make necessary adjustments to achieve desired outcomes. In the United Kingdom where the Conservatives and Labour Parties are frontrunners, they front their policy alternatives relative to their party ideologies, as do the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States. For example, under Margret Thatcher in the 1980s, the Conservative Party formulated and implemented policies on market liberalization and reduced government interference in production and service delivery. Conversely, the Labour Party administration under Tony Blair focused on policies, such as the introduction of the minimum wage, devolution of Scotland and Wales and increased investment in public services. In the case of the United States, the Democratic Party under Barrack Obama likewise formulated and implemented social welfare policies by, for instance, passing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and placing considerable emphasis on renewable energy in line with the party’s ideologies as social democrats.
3. Effective Communication: It is standard practice that political parties design policies and programs with due consideration given to the needs and aspirations of the citizens. Effective party leaders must consequently communicate these policies to the citizens in a way that the latter can easily relate to. A party may have superior policies comparatively, but convincing the electorate to buy into these policies is as important as designing them. It is therefore incumbent on party leadership to design effective communication platforms and strategies persuasive enough to connect with all segments of the electorate in order to build and maintain trust in the party and government. Clear, persuasive and localized communication via radio, television, local information centres, social media and direct engagements through town hall meetings can help build public support and enhance the party’s reputation and electoral fortunes.
4. Transparency and Accountability: Political party leadership must lead the transparency and accountability drive. They can achieve this by providing regular and timely updates on government activities, investigating and addressing alleged misconduct in their parties and government and being responsive to public concerns. There is every indication that honesty, consistency and enduring commitment from political party leaders is very fundamental to securing support from citizens. Also, there has to be procedural effectiveness and strong institutions that will create a balanced interface between leaders and citizens. The regular interface between political leaders and citizens improves political accountability, reduces corruption and engenders transparency. Despite its importance, Ghanaian party leaders have been largely ineffective in establishing mechanisms for regular electorate-political party interaction, especially in the area of eliciting feedback on party policies and programs. In its recent report, the Afrobarometer Briefing Paper evidenced that Ghanaian citizens have a low contact rating with state officials and political party leaders. The report indicated that about 85% of Ghanaian citizens do not have consistent contact with political party officials and 89% do not have any contact with a government official or agency. Against this background, it is incumbent for political party leadership to ensure regular contacts with the electorates to share their political ideologies, policies and program and get feedback from the electorates.
5. Meritocratic appointments: Political parties form or transition into government. By convention, the formation of government through the selection and appointment of persons into government positions is a fundamental task party leaders execute. For effective leadership, party leaders must focus on selecting competent but diverse individuals to serve in positions. Appointments should thus be meritorious and not purely based on party loyalty and activism. When these leaders are able to carefully select persons who have the skill and the will to work, it becomes easy to ensure teamwork and collaboration within the government. The current practice where merit and competence are sacrificed for party loyalty and other considerations is partly to blame for our decayed system; a system where most government appointees consider their selection/appointment as compensation for sacrifices made to their parties and not a call to serve. The onus, therefore, lies on the political party leadership to champion a change in course anchored on meritocracy and competence in the appointment of government officials. It is only through this that we can stand a better chance of building a government with strong institutions.
6. Maintaining Party Discipline: Political party leaders must command greater loyalty and ensure cohesion of members by putting in place rules, principles and ethical standards that seek to maintain party discipline within the party and government. Party discipline is integral in all forms of government (presidential, parliamentary, hybrid). It allows for parties to exercise constructive control over their members both in government and at party levels. The effective application of party discipline can promote unity among party members as well as serve as a determining factor in the practical functionality of the government. Almost all systems of government across the globe apply the whip system as a safe tool in securing cohesion and sustenance of governments, with strict sanctions exacted on deviants while promoting and rewarding compliance. For instance, to become true members of the Chinese Communist Party, members are required to take a binding oath which is strictly enforced.  Party discipline tends to be very strong in countries that practice the Westminster Parliamentary System, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Australian Labour Party, for instance, requires absolute solidarity with caucus decisions while discouraging “conscience voting” and “crossing the floor.” An attempt to vote against a caucus decision can thus result in outright expulsion from the party.
7. Long-term Planning and Crisis Management: Strategic but long-term planning backed by research and adaption to changing circumstances creates a solid foundation for political parties’ sustained success in government. Political parties often find themselves in very complex, uncertain and ever-changing environments which require proper but workable planning. Political party leaders must therefore ensure that short-term objectives are well consolidated into long-term goals. Due to the inevitability of conflict in political settings, it is politically prudent to design plans that will include crisis management strategies. Leaders must be prepared to handle crisis effectively by creating crisis response mechanisms, including crisis communication strategies, as part of their long-term plans. They must demonstrate strong crisis management skills, including swift decision-making and the ability to rally the party and the public during challenging times.

These lessons discussed above emphasize the importance of effective political party leadership. By practicing proper collaboration and consensus-building, strategic decision-making, effective communication, and maintaining party discipline, leaders can contribute to successful governance and maintain public confidence in the party’s ability to lead.