Monetization and Political Mafia in Ghanaian politics are depleting the country’s political talent.

Election supervisors in Ghana are required to supervise elections impartially, even if the
outcomes of the polls they supervise do not personally favor them. Voters also anticipate that
elections will generate true winners. However, bribes given to election officials and delegates
and more excellent divisiveness result in competent candidates losing or inept candidates
winning a political party’s primary election. Political parties have complicated candidate
selection methods, but internal party primaries are the principal method by which political parties
pick their presidential and parliamentary candidates.

Unfortunately, the framework of these internal competitions does not promote actual democracy
since delegates in political parties overwhelmingly vote for candidates who can buy their way
out; hence, financially disadvantaged candidates are constitutionally barred from running. This
claim is based on the fact that to be elected as an MP or Presidential candidate on the platform of
any political party in Ghana, candidates must apply to the designated constituency and
national committees and be vetted by regional and national parties. If more than one candidate
passes this stage, they are presented to the party’s delegates for a conference vote. Because the number of delegates voting in these internal contests is so tiny, wealthy aspiring candidates can buy their delegates support and loyalty at the expense of candidates who are poor but brilliant
and can make an effective contribution to the development of their constituencies and the nation
as a whole.

In reality, some wealthy aspirants go above and beyond to buy cars and television sets, pay
school fees, and make extensive offerings at funerals and church harvests, making the path to
Ghanas Parliament more difficult for impoverished but innovative applicants and more
accessible for the highest bidder. Wealthy candidates are indifferent about how much money
they will spend in the primary because they know that winning the primaries in the strongholds
of a political party qualifies them for a seat in Parliament. Ghanaians must not lose sight of the
fact that when money becomes the deciding factor in who becomes a political party
representative in a country where the law does not require a university degree for such a contest, the chances of electing the wrong person who does not appreciate Pitkinian concepts of delegates or trustees in representation are high. That phenomenon acts as a technical knockout for non-wealthy persons or those who are less affluent before entering the competition.

It also establishes a class structure in the nation. You need money to represent your people since
you are not part of the upper class that can purchase peoples thumbs to ride to Parliament.
Lower-class candidates who demonstrate empathy for their people but need the means to buy
people’s thumbs have more difficulty representing them in district assemblies or going to
Parliament. Because upper-class aspirants have an edge over lower-class aspirants, most of them
are less concerned with the well-being of their constituents. All of the country’s political parties
are guilty of this, with the New Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Party being the
biggest offenders.

The selection procedure creates a poor connection between elected officers and the people’s
interests. The representatives who spent money getting their constituents mandate feel they have
already paid the people and do not owe them. This reduces the quality of representation in
Ghanas legislative body. Again, the Ghanaian method of choosing candidates for the legislative
body deprives the nation of excellent political leaders who can shape and influence public
opinion, assist in setting the tone, and make choices that will affect the country’s future.
This inadequate selection procedure deprives the nation of excellent political leaders who can
shape and influence public opinion, set the tone, and make choices that affect the country’s
destiny.
Many outstanding politicians who cannot accept this flawed selection process quit their parties
to start their own political parties or run as independent candidates at the local and national
levels. Mr. Alan Kyeremanten recently left the NPP to create the Butterfly movement. At the
same time, Eunice Lasi, a previous NPP parliamentary candidate for the Sege constituency,
resigned from the NPP to run as an independent candidate in the 2024 election. Obed Asamoah
and others from the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have done it previously, as have many
others. The regrettable reality is that it is tough for such individuals to win elections and
represent their people in Ghana. Please get me right. Some independent candidates have been
fortunate to be elected to serve their constituents. It is a fact that only one out of every fifty
persons have been lucky to be chosen to represent their people. This does not benefit our
democracy, and in this respect, I would propose the following measures to strengthen the
country’s selection process for Presidential and parliamentary candidates.

Ghanaian administrations and political parties must first control the financing of presidential and
parliamentary primaries in Ghana. To do this, government and political parties should reduce the
money they charge aspirants for nomination forms and filing fees. Another option is to open up
the selection process, particularly at the constituency level. A contestant cannot afford to buy
votes when political parties employ an inclusive approach to choosing candidates by enabling all
party members or the whole voter constituency to participate. The advantage is that it compels
aspiring legislators to campaign on issues that benefit their constituents. It will also force elected
officials to establish good ties with their constituents.

Aside from that, emphasis should be placed on the value of knowledge and understanding for
voters to make better-informed choices. Money should not be a barrier to talented but not
wealthy aspirants. The state should offer additional resources and support for public education
campaigns, including, but not limited to, campaign funding restrictions. This would guarantee
that money is not the decisive factor in elections but rather the electorates and candidates mutual
knowledge and awareness of the community’s needs. On this note, I want to remind Ghanaian’s that when politics becomes the province of the wealthy, it has a propensity to remove everybody except the rich from the country’s decision-making process. The growing use of money to influence candidate selection is dangerous to Ghana’s multiparty representative democracy and must be eliminated.