Debate Over Appointment of MMDCEs

NEWS COMMENTARY ON THE DEBATE OVER APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPAL AND DISTRICT CHIEF EXECUTIVES 

The debate over the mode of selecting Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives, MMDCEs  has raged since the initiation of the 1992 Fourth Republican constitution. Those who argue for the election of MMDCEs hold the view that, when elected by the people, MMDCEs will be more responsive and accountable to them. Also, electing them is in keeping with the basic principle of representative democracy, which dictates that legislative and top executive positions in public office are to be occupied by elected representatives or politicians. Further, electing MMDCEs is a human rights issue, which would make grassroots democracy a reality. 

On the other hand, political parties, basing their arguments on rational choice considerations, prefer to maintain the status quo so that the President can have a more effective control over the MMDCEs through the power to appoint or dismiss them. This situation means the MMDCE would be at the beck and call of the President. Additionally, seeing it as an opportunity to meet the pressure for jobs by party members, political parties consider it totally unfathomable to let go of 216 vacant positions - that is the current number of MMDCE positions. Therefore while not in government, the opposition party would favour and stridently advocate the election of MMDCEs, only to change its mind and begin to favour appointing MMDCEs when it gets into office. Depending on how the Chief Executive gets into office, he or she will face different performance expectations and thus pursue different goals. 

An elected MMDCE is directly in charge of his destiny. Furthermore, for an MMDCE to be elected, he or she will be compelled to have policy goals that match the preferences of the electorate. Even when their preferences are not aligned with those of the public, elected MMDCEs would be expected to work in the interest of the public, a situation described as the disciplining role of elections. Also, elected MMDCEs would have the confidence and security of tenure to implement their development objectives for the MMDA. On the other hand, those in support of appointments suggest that elections can induce populism, with MMDCEs being forced to pander to the public and make unrealistic promises in order to  win votes. Appointed MMDCEs are able to pursue policy goals which are different from those of the electorate without pressure from them and fear of being voted out of power, should they become unpopular. Being insulated from the public, they draw on their policy expertise or professional capabilities. Additionally, people may be voted into office, not because of their competence or proven ability, but because of their personal likability, ethnic or tribal appeal, wealth and other mundane factors which may not have a direct bearing on the success of their tenure. In appointing MMDCEs, the President is given the freedom to look for the best hands to manage the MMDAs. 

Perhaps the major fear against elections is that electing MMDCEs will make it difficult for the Executive President to have his programmes effectively executed by a hostile MMDCE, who, while preparing the grounds for his preferred party to come into power, will work deliberately against the ruling government and make it unpopular. Despite the provision in Article 243 clause one of the 1992 Constitution, which shows preference for the appointment of MMDCEs, Article 240 clause two E states that to ensure accountability of local government authorities, people in particular local  government areas shall, as far as practicable, be afforded the opportunity to participate effectively  in their governance. From the text, “accountability”, “effective participation” and “governance” are important visions of the constitution, visions which can best be achieved in a democracy through popular elections. 

Making the MMDCE position elective will provide an alternative route for persons who feel competent and capable of running for public office, but whose only route, for now, remains the oversubscribed parliamentary seats. Following from the above, the excitement generated through MMDCE elections should positively impact the local Assembly elections, in terms of the interest it will generate and the number of competent persons who may wish to stand. Also, rather than engendering disunity as has been expressed by critics, elections would rather facilitate  and test the ability of candidates to mobilise citizens to address common local development problems. 

Through the excitement and processes of electing MMDCEs, the electorate would become empowered and better informed about the role and functions of their MMDA.

BY EVANS GYAMPO, A GOVERNANCE ANALYST.