The outcome of the 2024 general elections in Ghana saw the National Democratic Congress (NDC), led by President John Dramani Mahama winning overwhelmingly over the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
However, as the new administration settled into power, a contentious issue of mass termination of contracts of employees who were recruited into government agencies under the Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo administration in its final days has dominated the public space.
This development has sparked national debate over the implications of political transitions on job security, governance and the broader promise of job creation that dominated campaign rhetoric. The situation raises important questions: Was due process followed in these appointments? Should a new administration have the power to terminate employment en masse? Lastly and most importantly, how can Ghana learn from other democracies to prevent such occurrences in the future?
The Issue at Hand
The NPP has argued that the employment of these individuals was lawful and they had financial clearance and also paid strict adherence to due process. From their perspective, these terminations represent political victimization and contradict President Mahama’s campaign promise of creating jobs for Ghanaians through initiatives such as the 24-hour economy policy.
On the other hand, the NDC contends that these last-minute employments were politically motivated and were aimed at strategically placing party loyalists in government institutions before handing over power. They argue that it is within the government’s prerogative to review and restructure public sector employment as necessary.
This may not be the first time Ghana has witnessed such a scenario. Changes in government have historically been accompanied by sweeping dismissals, transfers and appointments which lead to job insecurity for those employed in the public sector.
This cyclical pattern not only disrupts livelihoods but also weakens institutional stability.
Lessons from Advanced Democracies
In advanced democracies such as the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, United States (US) and Canada, political transitions do not typically result in mass employment terminations. Instead, governments differentiate between political appointees and career civil servants.
1.United Kingdom: In the UK, outgoing governments typically avoid making significant appointments during the purdah period, the time between an election announcement and the formation of a new government. For instance, in 2010, the Labour Party refrained from last-minute appointments ahead of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition takeover. This convention ensures a smooth transition and minimizes political interference.
2.Germany: In Europe’s largest economy, the civil service is highly professionalized and appointments are based on merit rather than political affiliation. When governments change, civil servants retain their positions unless they hold politically appointed roles. For example, during the transition from Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) coalition in 2021, only top-tier political appointees were replaced, whilst lower-level employees remained unaffected.
3.United States: In the US, the lame-duck period, the time between an election and the new president’s inauguration often sees outgoing administrations make last-minute appointments.
However, these can be reversed by the incoming administration. For example, President Donald Trump reversed several Obama-era appointments in 2017, but such actions were typically limited to high-level positions, not mid or lower-level roles. However, in the recent termination of appointments by President Mahama’s administration, even lower level positions for ordinary Ghanaians are affected.
4.Canada: In Canada, transitions are generally smooth with outgoing governments avoiding controversial appointments. For instance, when Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party took over from Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in 2015, there were no mass terminations of lower-level appointees.
Proposed Solutions for Ghana
To ensure that ordinary Ghanaians do not suffer when governments change, it is imperative for Ghana to reform its employment practices within the public sector. The following measures could be considered:
1.Legal Protections for Civil Servants: Ghana could establish clear legal frameworks that protect public sector employees from politically motivated dismissals.
A distinction should be made between political appointees and career civil servants.
2.Independent Civil Service Commission: An independent body could be established and empowered to oversee recruitment, promotions and dismissals in the public sector. This will prevent outgoing governments from making rushed appointments and ensure that employment decisions are based on merit rather than political allegiance.
3.Employment Audits Before Transitions: There could be a mandatory review of all public sector recruitments within the last year of any administration. This will ensure that only legally sanctioned and necessary appointments are maintained.
4.Strengthening Institutional Continuity: Ghana could adopt policies that promote continuity in governance to ensure that government projects and personnel remain unaffected by political changes.
Conclusion
The recent wave of job terminations following the 2024 elections indicates a major flaw in Ghana’s governance system and must be addressed urgently to protect the livelihoods of ordinary citizens.
Political transitions should not translate into economic instability for workers who serve the nation. By learning from advanced democracies and implementing reforms that insulate the civil service from political interference, Ghana can build a stable and professional public sector that thrives beyond the tenure of any political party. Until such reforms are enacted, the cycle of employment terminations will continue to disrupt governance and the economic well-being of many Ghanaians.