Ghana, which has more than 70 ethnic groups, has been among the most stable democracies in Africa since 1992. It has achieved this by outlawing the use of ethnicity in party politics. The 1992 constitution bars the explicit use of social identities in party politics. That includes ethnic group names, symbols, colours, or artefacts. Yet, Ghanaian politics is not completely devoid of ethnicity. Political scientist Clement Sefa-Nyarko explains why this matters as Ghana prepares for another election in December.
Why did Ghana need a clause in its 1992 constitution designed to squeeze ethnicity out of electoral politics?
Ethnicity has had a disruptive effect on Ghana since colonial times. The British used ethnicity to advance their indirect rule policy. Kwame Nkrumah, the country’s first postcolonial leader, inherited this and struggled with the predominantly Asante National Liberation Movement over whether newly independent Ghana should be a federal or unitary state. A federal state would have given more autonomy to dominant chieftaincies and ethnic groups like the Asantes. Nkrumah didn’t want this. The unitary model won.
