When the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) floated the idea of extending Ghana’s presidential term from four years to five, it reignited an old debate dressed up as reform. But this is one proposal that misunderstands the problem it claims to solve.
Ghana’s governance challenges are not caused by a lack of time; they are caused by how time is used. Four years is enough. If a president cannot deliver within that period, adding one more year will not suddenly produce better results.
The 1992 Constitution set a four-year term for a reason. It balances stability with accountability. It gives an elected president adequate time to plan, implement, and evaluate policies, while ensuring that citizens can regularly assess performance at the ballot box. That balance is not broken. And when something is not broken, it does not need fixing.
Supporters of a five-year term often argue that four years is too short to implement long-term policies. In theory, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it ignores Ghana’s political reality.
The real obstacle to long-term development is not the length of the presidential term; it is the lack of continuity between governments, excessive politicisation of projects, and weak institutional discipline. Roads are abandoned, programmes are rebranded, and policies are reversed not because four years is short, but because politics comes before progress.
Every Ghanaian president knows the rules before contesting elections. They campaign for years, assemble teams, and prepare manifestos well in advance. Once sworn in, they are not starting from zero.
If the first year is “orientation,” the second is “planning,” the third is “implementation,” and the fourth is “campaigning,” that is not a constitutional problem, it is a leadership problem. Wasting time in office should not be rewarded with more time.
The CRC deserves credit for undertaking broad consultations and reopening important conversations about governance, accountability, and separation of powers. Ghana must constantly review its constitutional framework to strengthen democracy. But constitutional review must be guided by evidence, not convenience.
Where is the proof that countries with five-year presidential terms perform better? Where is the data showing improved governance, reduced corruption, or stronger institutions simply because leaders stayed one extra year? Without such evidence, the proposal feels like change for the sake of change.
Extending the presidential term also weakens democratic accountability. Elections are the most powerful tool citizens have to correct mistakes, punish poor performance, and renew national direction.
Fewer elections mean fewer opportunities for citizens to speak. In a young democracy like Ghana’s, that matters. Regular elections keep leaders alert, responsive, and grounded. Stretching the term risks encouraging complacency and entitlement at the very top.
There is also the political cost. Changing the term length will almost certainly require a referendum, consume national attention, and deepen partisan divisions. At a time when Ghanaians are more concerned about jobs, education, healthcare, and the cost of living, is this really where our energy should go? Constitutional reform should solve pressing problems, not distract from them.
If the CRC is serious about improving governance efficiency, there are better places to focus. Enforcing strict timelines for government programmes, strengthening independent institutions, reducing excessive ministerial appointments, and fully separating the executive from the legislature would do far more to improve performance than adding a fifth year to the presidency. Strong institutions, not longer tenures, are what drive development.
Ghana has changed governments peacefully under the four-year system multiple times. Power transitions have been orderly. Democracy has deepened. These are not signs of a failing framework. They are signs of a system that works, imperfect, yes, but functional.
The danger with constitutional tinkering is that it can slowly shift focus away from responsibility. Leaders may begin to believe that the system owes them more time, rather than that they owe the people results. That mindset is far more damaging than any deadline imposed by a four-year term.
The CRC’s work is important, and its recommendations deserve serious national discussion. But on the matter of extending the presidential term, Ghana should be firm and clear: four years is enough. If you cannot fix it, build it, or move it forward in four years, one more year will not make the difference.
It’s not broken. Don’t try to fix it.
