My initial understanding was that I was to make remarks to open a general discussion on democratic elections. Then, a few days ago, I saw from the programme of activities that I am to speak on the topic *“Elections, Democracy and Governance.”*

The change doesn’t bother me, but I have rearranged the terms for the topic to read “Elections, Governance, and Democracy” because I view democracy as the destination and elections and governance as the means, the way, to get there. The issue is: what type of elections and what type of governance? So, I wish to lay out a broad framework of elections and follow up with some considerations relating to governance and democracy.

I wish to begin with an observation that it has taken the mature democracies of the world a long time and a long way to get to wherever they are today. Still, none of them will say that it has reached the end of the road to democracy if there is ever such an endpoint.

Indeed, the journey to democracy is always long and we can even lose our way as we go along. In that journey, every election represents an important stage, because it provides an opportunity to select new leaders if we think the old ones are not taking us on the correct path to democracy.

But, to serve that useful purpose, the election must be of a specific kind, branded as a democratic election, because its features must accord with the principles that underpin democracy. We can sum up those principles by saying that the power to govern comes from the people. So, we can define a democratic election, in simple terms, as a contest among candidates, mediated by an electoral commission, and decided by the voters.

The most important implication to draw from this definition is that in a democratic election, voters are pre-eminent, and their valid votes are inviolable for determining the winners and for settling disputes over election results. This makes the polling station results form, which has come to be popularly known in Ghana as the pink sheet, a precious commodity in our elections. This requires candidates to appoint knowledgeable agents to represent them at the polling stations because an agent’s work is essentially a brainy task.

Let us also note that Ghana has chosen a multiparty democracy as its brand of democracy. A multiparty democracy does not necessarily mean that there are many political parties. But how many parties are there in Britain, the United States of America, Germany, France or any functional multiparty democracy you know of? Most likely, only a few in each country.

A multiparty democracy means that one political party does not dominate elections so much that all the other parties combined do not make a difference. If one party dominates to such an extent, the country is a one-party state, irrespective of the number of parties.

So, what is important in a multiparty democracy is that there are political parties that make elections truly competitive. On that score, currently, Ghana is a multiparty democracy because of the NPP and the NDC. With a collective score of less than 10% of the total votes in previous elections and no representation in parliament, all the other parties combined have had virtually no impact on how our country is governed.

Be that as it may, to pass the test of being a democratic election, the results of elections must be credible. That means the results are worthy of acceptance as a basis for forming a legitimate government, a government, respected at home and abroad. To determine that the results of an election are credible, we need to step back a bit and talk about the essential features of an electoral system. Some processes characterise the electoral systems of all democracies, and all the processes are based on broadly the same principles. What differentiates the systems is how they try to actualise the principles and the formulas for winning elections, such as first-past-the-post for MPs and 50%+1 for the president in Ghana.

The salient processes are voter registration, campaigning, voting, vote counting, tabulation/collation of results, transmission of results, and announcement of results. I will proceed to highlight the key features of these processes with indications of who is responsible for doing what under our electoral system.

*Voter Registration:* Every eligible person must be accorded a reasonable opportunity to register as a voter, and a person can register only once. These features must be reflected in the voter register used for elections. This is the responsibility of the electoral commission.

*Campaigning:* Candidates should be free to campaign wherever they are contesting elections, so there should be no no-go areas. However, the campaigns must be peaceful and clean. Here, the basic responsibility lies with the political parties, candidates, and the police.

However, individuals and groups can publicly condemn any infractions, and widespread condemnation usually impacts the candidates for fear of losing votes.

*Voting:* There is a wide distribution of responsibilities when it comes to voting. Only a registered voter can vote in an election, and a person can vote only once in the same election. The responsibility falls mainly on the electoral commission and its officials. A person must be free to exercise his/her vote: it is the responsibility of the police to ensure general peace and secure an election devoid of violence. A voter must, in turn, allow other voters to vote freely: a responsibility is placed on all voters. Every candidate can appoint an agent to verify the voting activities at every polling station on his/her behalf. This is an important responsibility of every candidate.

*Vote Counting:* The procedure for vote counting must be clearly outlined and known well ahead of time. What constitutes a valid or invalid vote must be specified. Only valid votes are counted when calculating the results. Every vote must be accurately counted in the active presence of candidates’ agents. A valid vote must be counted in favour of the candidate for whom it was cast. Proper documentation must be made of the results of the vote counting. Each agent must be given a true copy of the results, duly signed by the Presiding officer and the agents, right at the polling station. The Presiding officer and the agents at every polling station are responsible for ensuring that the measures normally indicated in the Election Manual, are adhered to.

*Tabulation/Collation of Results:* The Returning Officer has full control of the tabulation of results, but there are good practices that help to avoid controversy over the results (a) Let the place, procedures, and duration of the collation be known well ahead of time. (B) Make the tabulation of results a well-organised activity. (C) Do the tabulation in the active presence of the candidates, and/or their appointed agents. (D) Check the results thoroughly to ensure that they are correct. (E) Give the candidates/agents true copies of the tabulated results, duly signed by the returning officer (and preferably the candidates/agents), before they leave the place of collation.

*Transmission of Results:* A secure method agreed upon and/or acceptable to the political parties/candidates/agents should be used to transmit the results. Presiding officers and Returning officers have the responsibility for transmitting the results.

*Announcement of Results:* There are examples of good practice on this. Unless the election law has a provision for provisional results the results announced must be correct and final. If the results are provisional, not final, then say so, and give the reasons for announcing provisional results.

What matters is not how fast the results are released, but how accurate they are. In Ghana, this is the responsibility of the Returning Officers of the various constituencies in the case of parliamentary elections and the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, who is personally the Returning Officer for the presidential election.

*Distribution of Responsibilities:* I hope we can see the distribution of responsibilities in elections. In addition to what I have indicated, the government, the courts, the media, civil society organisations, and voters, all have roles to play in elections.

While the electoral commission is understandably the referee at the centre of the field, it is noteworthy that there are at least two other referees of elections. The courts must settle any disputes that arise over the elections at any time: and, to secure the general peace for elections, the police must also arrest and prosecute election offenders. It is critically important for the police to act as national police, not the government or political party police, and for the judiciary to see itself as an impartial arbiter in election cases.

In fact, in general, how the various actors in elections play their respective roles affects the credibility or otherwise of an election. Eventually, if we are satisfied that the actors have played their roles reasonably well, we can say that an election is credible, and the results are therefore, acceptable as a basis for forming a legitimate government.

With this background, I wish to emphasise the importance of three factors in elections: the election law, the use of technology in elections, and why our votes must count.

*Importance of the Election Law:* The collection of laws referred to as the election law comprises three components: (1) All the provisions in the Constitution that relate to elections (2) All the extant laws (statutes) on elections made by Parliament (3) Legislation on elections made by the Electoral Commission or some other authorised body.

The three categories constitute a hierarchy of laws, in that, in principle, legislation cannot infringe a provision in a statute, let alone the constitution, and a provision in a statute cannot infringe a provision in the constitution. Given this order of precedence, it is important to note that provisions of a validly enacted statute or subsidiary legislation derive from the Constitution. So, it makes sense to treat such provisions as constitutional provisions. I sometimes hear people say that something is not right because it is not in the constitution: but it is wrong to see the election law as only what is explicitly stated in the constitution. The election law is for the protection of the election official or any election stakeholder. This has two important implications. First, the general advice is to do as the election law says. If you don’t, you risk an action you take being declared illegal for not conforming to the law.

You may get away with something if you and the other concerned parties say the political parties, have reached an agreement on it and they don’t complain. Even so, such an agreement doesn’t clothe one with immunity because, under our law, some individual or organisation can take the matter to court.

The second implication is the need for a keen interest in the election law. Not only should Parliament always undertake proper scrutiny of every subsidiary legislation on elections, but election-related civil society organisations and knowledgeable individuals should show interest in the formulation of statutes and any subsidiary legislation on elections. Whether good or bad, the existing election law is what the people have given to themselves for their elections, and it remains binding on everyone.

*The use of Technology in Elections:* Examples abound on how technology has helped to improve the systems and processes of running elections. With technology we can do things quicker: we can keep a lot of material in a small space and retrieve it as and when it is needed: on Election Day, we can verify if the person who has come to vote is the same person who registered to vote, we can get results quicker, and so on. Given all this, we are easily tempted to talk of technology-driven elections. But the enigma of technology in elections is that it can bring things very close to you and equally make you lose total control over them.

No wonder these days political parties are often looking for illegal access to an electoral commission’s database. In the memorable and prophetic words of a former fellow electoral commissioner: “If they succeed, they can rummage in our databases to our embarrassment.”

Today by electronic means information in election databases can be tampered with and election results hacked locally or externally.

*Why the Vote Must Count:* Some people are disillusioned about elections saying that votes don’t count anymore, meaning that elections don’t express the will of the voters. There are many obstacles to free and fair elections, but the most worrisome situation is where politicians can buy leadership with money through plain fraud and vote-buying.

Apart from expressing the will of the people, which is the essence of a democratic election, there are practical and commonsensical reasons why votes must count. Where votes count, you have a peaceful transition of governments, legitimate leaders accepted at home and abroad, and genuine political opposition. Where votes don’t count, there can be no justification for spending enormous amounts of money and time on elections.

Politicians are unlikely to be responsive to the people’s needs or worried about good governance. Instead, corruption is likely the order of the day, often leading to a paradoxical situation of a rich country with poor people. Even worse, a civil war can break out over disputed election results.

*Good Governance:* Through elections, we choose people to lead us, on the path to democracy. We do so in the belief and hope that the persons so chosen will genuinely take us on the path and not lead us astray. To put us on the correct path to democracy, good elections must be followed with good governance. For me, good governance defies a clear-cut definition. However, if good governance, arrives in town, we can easily recognise it by the following characteristics which it brings along.

(A) It respects the civil liberties and the people’s political rights. (B) It is responsive to the needs of the people and promotes their socio-economic well-being. (C) It controls corruption. (D) The press and civil society organisations operate as guardians of the public interest. (E) The political opposition sees itself as complementary to good governance. (F) It helps the private sector to prosper.

But these developments don’t happen automatically. Just as there is a distribution of responsibilities in elections, there is also a distribution of responsibility towards achieving good governance. Key among the actors are the three branches of government – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Let me say simply that each of these institutions must perform its functions well without encroaching on the jurisdiction of the other, thereby dislocating the arrangements laid out in the
Constitution.

Additionally, any other institution in the public sector, from the Council of State to the Forestry Commission, has been set up for a purpose. Good governance requires that all such institutions perform their functions creditably. Apart from these public sector institutions, civil society organisations are expected to act as watchdogs for the people’s interests in their respective areas of concern.

In addition to honest reportage, the media is expected to bring to public attention instances of corruption and the abuse of power by public officials. Individuals and groups can test the law in case of doubt about the propriety of official actions and conduct.

Democracy is a place where people enjoy basic rights and freedoms. But it is also a place where people have reasonable access to necessities such as food, good drinking water, decent housing, electricity, usable roads, good education, efficient health facilities and jobs, with responsibilities, including payment of taxes, maintaining law and order and obeying the law.

Free and fair elections don’t bring any of these things. But without free and fair elections, ordinary persons cannot hold their leaders accountable, whether they deliver the benefits of democracy or not. We must note that holding officials accountable through elections applies only to members of parliament and the president. Many important public officials, including judges and electoral commission members, may not be directly accountable to the people. How to hold such officials accountable is always problematic.

*Conclusion:* I wish to conclude by saying that good elections and good governance are the vehicles for a condition of democracy.

At its core, democracy refers to improvements in human conditions, it is not a fixed station where a journey ends. This is why the contents of human rights keep expanding. There are several rights today that were not rights in the past, and the ambit of rights will continue to expand according to the need for improvements to the human condition.

We should brace ourselves and prepare for a long journey, because, given a choice, I believe that people will prefer to live in a democracy, instead of other forms of government including authoritarian rule.

Presentation By Dr Afari-Gyan, Former Chairman Of Ghana Electoral Commission Men’s Fellowship Of Ridge Church, Accra On 10th October 2024