One of Ghana’s most respected voices on governance has issued a blunt verdict on the country’s political parties. Professor Henry Kwasi Prempeh, a lawyer, academic and the current executive director of the Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD Ghana), says too many parties exist to enrich their own circles rather than to serve the public.
In a Facebook post, he argued that parties have come to resemble “mutual aid associations”, groups that pursue state power chiefly to better the material circumstances of their leaders and loyalists. In his reading, the welfare of ordinary Ghanaians is pushed to the margins instead of sitting at the heart of political leadership.
His wording left little room for doubt.
“Your so-called political parties are little more than mutual aid associations. They seek power primarily to use it to transform the material fortunes of their leaders and co-partisans,” he wrote.
He went on to say that whatever gains reach the average citizen under this arrangement are a by-product, not the goal.
“Any benefit to the ordinary citizen is incidental and secondary. You cannot sustain a democracy with such,” he added.
Though the post names no party, its implications reach across the whole political landscape. It prompts a wider debate about what parties are for in a democracy, and about accountability, the handling of public resources and the delivery of policies that make a real difference to people’s lives.
In theory, parties are meant to put forward ideas, compete openly for public backing and offer leadership that advances the national interest. Prof. Prempeh’s point is that this promise erodes when loyalty to the party and the private interests of insiders outrank the needs of the wider population.
Your Party Is Not Always Right: Just Understand This!
His remarks also separate two things that are easily confused: winning power and using it well. Taking office is only the first step. What matters is whether that authority is then turned toward improving citizens’ living conditions.
The core of his warning concerns durability. If parties are seen to put their own members ahead of the public, he suggests, democracy itself is on shaky ground.
A healthy democracy needs more than regular elections and peaceful handovers. It also relies on institutions that deliver accountability, fair treatment and responsible governance. When people come to believe that power chiefly rewards party leaders and their associates, trust in political institutions can wear away.
For that reason, his comments read as an invitation to reflect. Are parties living up to their wider democratic duties? Do the interests of ordinary citizens still anchor political decision-making?
Beneath it all lies one central question: do parties treat an election victory as a mandate to serve the entire nation, or as a chance to reward supporters and strengthen their own networks?
The statement joins a broader conversation on political accountability, public service and the responsibilities that come with democratic leadership. His bottom line is clear: when the pursuit of power is driven mainly by the material interests of party insiders rather than a real commitment to citizens’ welfare, democracy becomes very hard to sustain.