Ghana has been led by many leaders since the era of the Gold Coast. From the period of colonial rule, through the struggle against slavery and imperial domination, to independence under the leadership of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah in 1957, the nation’s political journey has been shaped by different motivations, ideologies, and leadership styles. Each phase of Ghana’s history presents an important context for understanding the present-day struggle for political power and the motivations behind the desire to lead the nation.
Following independence, Ghana experienced periods of political instability marked by military coups beginning in 1966. This era of coups and counter-coups continued until 1992, when the country formally adopted a democratic system of governance under the Fourth Republic. Since then, Ghana has enjoyed relative political stability, constitutional rule, and regular elections, making it one of Africa’s most celebrated democracies.
Under the Fourth Republic, two dominant political parties – the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) – have alternated in governing the nation. Since 1992, these parties have been given multiple opportunities to lead Ghana, formulate policies, manage national resources, and shape the country’s development path. This raises a fundamental and unavoidable question: what truly motivates these parties to wanting to lead the nation?
Ideally, the motivation to seek political power should be rooted in a genuine desire to serve the people and improve the collective welfare of the nation. One would expect political ambition to be driven by clear plans to strengthen institutions, improve governance systems, expand infrastructure, ensure quality education, create jobs, reduce poverty, and promote economic stability. In theory, leadership should be about sacrifice, vision, and service to the greater good.
However, in practice, the motivations behind the intense desire to occupy the presidency often appear blurred. While campaign messages frequently highlight development, innovation, and national transformation, the reality after elections sometimes tells a different story. Many governments have struggled to fulfill major campaign promises, and in some cases, policies introduced have proven unrealistic, poorly implemented, or disconnected from the everyday needs of ordinary Ghanaians.
One particularly disturbing trend is the level of desperation exhibited by political parties whenever they go into opposition. In some instances, this desperation becomes evident less than a year after losing power. Instead of allowing the ruling government the space to govern while offering constructive criticism and alternative solutions, opposition politics often turns into relentless agitation, unnecessary tension, and divisive rhetoric.
This behavior invites deeper reflection. If the motivation for leadership is truly national development, why does losing power feel like an unbearable setback rather than a temporary democratic outcome? Why do some political actors treat governance as an entitlement rather than a responsibility entrusted by the people?
Another troubling issue is the recurring pattern of failed promises and abandoned initiatives. Every election cycle is accompanied by grand visions, attractive slogans, and ambitious manifestos. Yet, many of these promises remain unfulfilled by the end of a government’s tenure. In some cases, incoming administrations abandon projects initiated by their predecessors, not because they lack merit, but simply due to partisan differences. This cycle of discontinuity wastes public resources and slows national progress.
Concerns about selfish and personal priorities cannot be ignored. Allegations of corruption, misuse of public funds, nepotism, and excessive political patronage have repeatedly dominated public discourse. When political leadership appears more focused on personal enrichment or party interest than national interest, public trust in governance erodes. Citizens begin to question whether the quest for power is about service or self-preservation.
The presidency of Ghana is considered as one of the most powerful offices in the country, that carries enormous influence over national policy, economic direction, and public institutions. Such power, when not guided by strong ethical values and a genuine commitment to service, can easily become a tool for personal or partisan gain. This reality makes it even more important to scrutinize the motivations of those who seek the highest office.
That said, it would be unfair to suggest that all political leaders lack good intentions. Ghana has benefited from leaders who have made meaningful contributions to infrastructure development, education reforms, healthcare improvements, and democratic consolidation. Nonetheless, the persistent challenges facing the nation—youth unemployment, rising cost of living, debt burden, and weak institutions—suggest that political motivation alone is not enough. What matters most is accountability, consistency, and sincerity in leadership.
Ultimately, the motivation for wanting to be the President of Ghana should transcend party loyalty and personal ambition. It should be anchored in a deep sense of patriotism, humility, and responsibility to future generations. Will Ghana’s democracy truly mature if political power continues to be pursued as an end in itself rather than as a means to serve? And will citizens not continue to question not just who wants to lead, but why they want to lead?
Keep following GH Educate for more
