Commentary, Opinion

The Chair Doesn’t Make You, But Your Character Does

By Jones Anlimah, a journalist.

In Ghanaian politics, symbols of power often draw as much attention as the policies intended to shape the nation. Among these symbols, the presidency stands out—not just for its authority but for the stage it provides to test the optics of leadership against practical governance. In recent years, even mundane objects have taken on symbolic weight, with one unexpected item, a chair, yes the chair becoming a lightning rod for debate.

During former President Nana Akufo-Addo’s tenure, his “traveling chair” became a prominent talking point in the media. This customized chair, which accompanied him to events across the country, became a subject of national scrutiny. Critics questioned its necessity, speculated on its cost, and lamented the lack of transparency regarding its funding. For them, it represented an avoidable extravagance in a country grappling with economic challenges. Supporters, however, argued that the chair was a matter of protocol, ensuring comfort, security, and consistency for a leader representing Ghana on both local and international stages.

While opinions remain divided, the “traveling chair” became more than just a furniture—it became a metaphor for the optics of leadership, occasionally overshadowing policy discussions and feeding into broader narratives about governance and public accountability.

Fast forward to the present, and President John Dramani Mahama’s return to power has presented a stark contrast. At public events, he has been seen using chairs provided locally, signaling a different approach to leadership. For some, this reflects a deliberate choice of simplicity and practicality over grandeur. For others, it raises questions about whether such symbolic gestures will translate into meaningful changes in governance.

This shift in symbolism invites reflection on the essence of leadership. Symbols of power may command attention, but they cannot substitute for the substance of good governance—character, empathy, and the ability to deliver for the people. The chair, in this case, serves as a lens through which we examine what truly defines a leader.

Leadership is not defined by the seat of power but by the actions taken in service to the people. A lavish chair may offer comfort and prestige, but it cannot obscure governance failures. Conversely, a modest approach, when paired with strong character, can inspire trust and confidence. However, humility in optics must be matched with tangible results in governance for it to be truly meaningful.

The contrast between former President Akufo-Addo and President Mahama’s leadership styles reflects broader questions about the intersection of optics and substance in Ghanaian politics. While former President Akufo-Addo’s “traveling chair” was criticized for excess, it is worth examining whether its symbolism detracted from or amplified his broader governance agenda. Similarly, President Mahama’s preference for simplicity raises questions: Is this a sign of pragmatic leadership, or is it merely a response to the optics of the moment?

Globally, leaders are increasingly judged not only by their policies but by the symbols they project. Figures like Pope Francis have embraced simplicity to underscore their values, while others have faced backlash for perceived extravagance. Ghana’s leadership narrative fits into this global trend, providing a case study in how symbols shape public perceptions.

Ultimately, the chair doesn’t make the leader—their character does. The true measure of leadership lies in the ability to connect with the people, make tough decisions, and lead with integrity. As Ghanaians observe these shifting symbols, they have an opportunity to demand more from their leaders: not just humility in appearance, but accountability and substance in action.

As we reflect on this evolving dynamic, one key question remains: Can a change in leadership symbolism signal a deeper transformation in governance? Or will optics continue to dominate the discourse, leaving substance as a secondary concern?

This ongoing debate challenges us to look beyond the superficial and focus on what truly matters—leadership that delivers for the people.