ABSTRACT
Consensually united elites are said to be very rare and as such limit the possibility for the spread of liberal democracy across the world. In Africa, Ghana presents itself as a case in point, not only because it is one of the most democratic countries in Africa but also the fact that political elites have been accorded the force behind this success. The study therefore examines the place of elite consensus in Ghana’s political landscape by examining the political parties, elections, the legislature and national development planning in the fourth republic. This analysis was made based on a wealth of knowledge provided by numerous scholars on the topic of elite consensus and how this concept is connected to democratic development. Within the Ghanaian political dispensation, based on some operational benchmarks, this study adopted self-perceptions expressed in qualitative, in-depth interviews with a limited number of political party executives, think-tanks, parliamentarians, civil servants and National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) officials. The study found out that political elites in Ghana are very united and as such depicts a horizontal integration of elites as explained by Higley and Burton. This has accounted for Ghana’s envious democratic strides. However, this consensus is only on issues affecting elites and not the citizens which are particularly indicative in Ghana’s legislature and national development planning since the start of the fourth republic. This finding goes against Higley and Burton’s vertically integrated elitism, which suggests a great cohesion between elites and the masses. This then confirms the hypothesis of the study which states that Ghana lacks an enduring elite consensus which has negatively affected national development. In light of these conclusions, the study prescribes some remedies in solving Ghana’s deficits on elite consensus towards national development in the long-run. They include having a third force in Ghana’s political arena, some constitutional amendments, effective civic education, procuring a national agenda on national development planning and effective conflict resolution mechanisms.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Over the years, the role of the state has evolved from the mere source of territorial protection (internal and external) to a system which provides inclusiveness and opportunities (economic, social, political and cultural) for its citizens (Tanzi, 1997). It has led to the evolution of democracy, a form of government focused on the people and where citizens are made masters of not only their destinies but also, the source of power through which leaders gain legitimacy (Schmitter & Karl, 1991).
Today, democracy has gained massive support as the ideal governance system in resolving the political and socio-economic challenges of countries worldwide (Kooijmans, 2018). This is in comparison to a government by the few (for example, the Communist Party in China and Cuba) or by a single person (such as the dictatorship of the Kim family in North Korea) (Pearson Higher Education, 2010). To many political thinkers, democracy best protects human rights and produces rational policies (Pearson Higher Education, 2010).
Nevertheless, democracy remains an aspiration rather than a finished product, according to many scholars (Pearson Higher Education, 2010). For this reason, democracy must follow three major benchmarks. These benchmarks include:
- popular sovereignty (government policies reflect the wishes of the people, government leaders are selected in competitive elections, elections are free and fair, people participate in the political process, high-quality information is available and majority rules);
- political equity (each person being of equal intrinsic value as other human beings, equal protection) and;
- political liberty(basic freedoms essential to the formation and expression of majority opinion and its translation into public policies) (Pearson Higher Education, 2010, pp. 7- 11).
Scholars like Higley and Burton have tried to explain the dilemma of unequal democracies across the world. A popular theory is the structural and actor-centric approaches, postulated by Higley and Burton (1989). The structural approach considers a country’s wealth as the leading factor for democracies whiles the actor-centric approach, on the other hand, highlights the process of elite bargaining and strategic interaction (Higley & Burton, 1989).
The “Third Wave” of democratization, a phrase which Huntington (1991) uses to describe the global trend that saw more than 60 countries undergo a democratic transition in the late 20th century, seems to support the actor-centric idea that democracy can thrive in all kinds of settings. This was particularly evident in Africa, a continent inhabiting some of the poorest countries and once seen as “unlikely democratizers” (Berman, 2007).
