In the world’s long journey toward freedom and good governance, few inventions have been more essential than representative democracy — a system where the people, not monarchs or warlords, determine who leads them and for how long. At the heart of this system lies a critical safeguard: term limits. They exist not to deny anyone power, but to prevent its abuse.
Should any one person govern beyond two terms, in a country whose Constitution clearly forbids it?
Democracy’s Deep Roots
The idea of representative governance dates back to ancient Rome, where citizens elected tribunes and consuls — though only the wealthy elite had full voting rights. The concept matured in medieval England, where the 1215 Magna Carta forced King John to consult his barons, planting the seeds of parliamentary rule. By 1689, the English Bill of Rights affirmed the supremacy of Parliament over the monarchy.
The modern form of representative democracy, however, gained traction in the United States after independence in 1776. While George Washington could have ruled for life, he voluntarily stepped down after two terms, setting a standard that would later become law. His decision established the principle that no one person should be indispensable to a republic.
Where Term Limits Work
Countries that respect constitutional term limits tend to enjoy more stable political transitions and stronger democratic institutions. In the United States, presidents can only serve two four-year terms — no exceptions. Even during times of war or economic crisis, the rule has held.
In South Africa, Nelson Mandela famously served only one term, refusing to cling to power even though he could have. His restraint reinforced the country’s democratic foundations and allowed new leadership to emerge.
In Nigeria, former president Goodluck Jonathan respected the outcome of the 2015 election and conceded defeat — setting an example of democratic maturity in West Africa.
Where Overstaying Ends in Ruin
History is replete with examples of what happens when leaders overstay their welcome. In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe ruled for 37 years, clinging to power through manipulation and fear. The result? A once-promising economy collapsed, and democracy was reduced to an illusion. In Uganda, President Yoweri Museveni scrapped term limits and has remained in power since 1986. What began as a liberation movement has turned into entrenched authoritarianism, with growing civil unrest and repression. And in Ivory Coast, Alassane Ouattara’s controversial decision to seek a third term led to violent clashes and a fractured political environment, undermining years of democratic progress.
Ghana’s Proud Democratic Path
Ghana has long been seen as a beacon of democracy in West Africa. Since returning to constitutional rule in 1992, the country has seen peaceful transitions of power and growing respect for democratic norms.
The Constitution’s Article 66(2) is clear:
“A person shall not be elected to hold office as President of Ghana for more than two terms.”
This clause exists to protect the integrity of the presidency, ensure equal opportunity, and avoid perpetual incumbency. By any person trying to return to power, the person risks setting a dangerous precedent — one that future leaders may exploit to erode democracy further.
Statesmanship, Not Power Hunger!
Democracy is not about one person. It is about institutions, the rule of law, and the will of the people. All Presidents who have served Ghana should now serve its democracy by honoring the constitutional limit and supporting the next generation of leaders. True leadership is not just about winning elections — it is about knowing when to walk away. Just like George Washington, Nelson Mandela, and Ghana’s own JAK, real statesmen know when their time is up.
Conclusion
Ghanaians must defend their Constitution and democratic heritage. If term limits are bent today for one man, they could be broken tomorrow by many. For Ghana’s democracy to thrive, its rules must be respected — especially by those who once swore to uphold them. Let us choose the future over the past, the Constitution over convenience, and democracy over ambition. Yes, the judges “…CAN INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION…” to favour someone today, but tomorrow, the same favour to another person (with Idi Amin’s mindset) will be too much for the patient and persevering Ghanaian. At best, why not make slight adjustment of five years for a term, and still maintain the two terms maximum?
FUSEINI ABDULAI BRAIMAH
0550558008 / 0208282575 (WhatsApp)
[email protected]
