Goodluck Jonathan: Four-Year Terms Too Brief for Nigeria and Ghana
Nigeria's former President Goodluck Jonathan has raised very pertinent concerns on the possibility of four-year presidential terms in West African countries like Nigeria and Ghana. Jonathan believes that the duration is too short for the leaders to implement long-term developmental initiatives and effectively make an impact in their nations. He argues that this short tenure in office retards the achievement of meaningful progress, especially for countries that are beset by deep-seated social and economic problems.
Jonathan's best argument is that the nature of government in these emerging countries requires a longer timeframe for planning and implementation, as well as an outcome timeframe. In his view, the system of politics goes a long way towards making leaders invest much of their first term preparing for re-election, rather than applying their best efforts to governance. This is especially troublesome if new presidents are required to deal first with the crises bequeathed by the others—crises that will be years away before they can even start working toward their own agenda of development.
Jonathan has suggested introducing one, extended term for presidents as a measure against this. His proposal envisions a term that is long enough to allow a president to focus on governing, free from distraction and pressure of running for re-election. A six or seven-year sole term, he thinks, will give presidents enough time to initiate and complete policies, projects, and reforms. This idea, he contends, would reduce political tension and facilitate continuity in government, which normally is disrupted by incessant electoral cycles.
Jonathan's concern is not peculiar to Nigeria. Ghana, which operates a concurrent four-year term system of government, also faces the same issue. Successive governments in Ghana have made the same observation concerning the difficulty in offering effective government within such a limited time frame. Political rotation every four years typically translates to radical policy change despite ongoing projects, which hold promise. Policy inconsistency and implementation of projects keep the two nations from developing and expanding further.
Critics of extended presidential terms are generally worried about the danger of authoritarianism or democratic backsliding. Jonathan maintains, however, that extending the length of one term does not necessarily mean extending power perpetually. Instead, it must go together with robust constitutional term limits to prevent abuses. He believes that this can be achieved through meticulous legal reforms and a comprehensive national consensus on which system of government best serves the people.
Jonathan's proposal indicates a broader examination of the manner in which democratic institutions may be adapted to fit the needs of developing countries. Four-year terms may work well for some older democracies, but may not be as helpful in nations still building strong institutions and infrastructure. Well-run and open longer terms could introduce stability and a larger chance of progression.
Lastly, Goodluck Jonathan's call for the restoration of the four-year term of office in Nigeria and Ghana is driven by a desire to see real development, reduced political pressure, and better leadership. His proposal of one long presidential term is not a call to cling to power, but to give presidents room to lead. Whether or not these reforms come to pass, his message highlights the need for African nations to critically evaluate their systems of governance in pursuit of sustainable development.
blogpay
Goodluck Jonathan: Four-Year Terms Too Brief for Nigeria and Ghana
Total Comments: 0