Ghana's New Party Primary System Needs State Funding Support, Says Democracy Hub Advisor

Following Ghana's Supreme Court's landmark decision to replace the delegate system with a "one member, one vote" framework for party primaries, Constitutional Rights and Policy Strategy Advisor at Democracy Hub Oliver Barker-Vormawor is calling on the state to provide broader financial support for the costly new electoral process.

The 5–2 Supreme Court majority decision, delivered on July 29, fundamentally reshapes how political parties will select their leaders and candidates. Instead of a small pool of delegates making these choices, all registered members in good standing can now participate—a shift expected to dramatically increase the cost and complexity of internal party elections across Ghana.

The Cost Question

Since the ruling, political parties and observers have raised concerns about the financial burden of organising nationwide primaries across expanded membership bases. Barker-Vormawor acknowledged these concerns are legitimate but argued they should not discourage the democratic reform. Speaking on JoyNews' Newsfile programme on August 1, he stated: "The mere fact that this may not entirely eliminate money in our politics doesn't mean we shouldn't try."

Rather than viewing the expanded system as an entirely new cost burden for parties, Barker-Vormawor argues that the state already invests substantially in party primaries through the Electoral Commission's supervisory role. The Electoral Commission oversees these internal contests—and taxpayers fund this work. He contends that policymakers should therefore view state support for the new system as a natural extension of existing democratic infrastructure, not an unprecedented expense.

A Holistic Approach to Democratic Funding

Barker-Vormawor advocates for a comprehensive policy conversation about how Ghana funds its democratic processes going forward. He suggests the state should carefully evaluate how much financial responsibility it should assume as parties transition to the new "one member, one vote" system. This discussion, he argues, must balance the practical reality of organising large-scale elections with the democratic principle that broader participation strengthens internal party democracy.

He pushed back against characterisations suggesting parties currently operate entirely independently of state support. "But also importantly, it is not true that our democracy imposes any cost on our political parties at all," he said, pointing to existing Electoral Commission involvement as evidence of state investment in internal party processes.

Why It Matters for Ghana

Ghana's shift from a delegate-based to a membership-based primary system represents one of the most significant changes to internal party governance in recent decades. The ruling directly affects how major parties like the National Democratic Congress and New Patriotic Party select their presidential candidates and other leaders—decisions that ultimately shape Ghana's political landscape.

The financial sustainability of the new system will determine whether this democratic reform succeeds or falters. If parties cannot afford to conduct nationwide primaries, or if costs become prohibitive, the Supreme Court's vision of inclusive internal democracy could remain unrealised. Barker-Vormawor's argument that the state has a role to play suggests that Ghana may need legislative or policy frameworks clarifying how the Electoral Commission and government should support this transition.

The broader implication is clear: deepening Ghana's internal party democracy requires not just legal rulings but also pragmatic solutions to the operational challenges they create. How the government and political parties navigate the funding question over the next election cycle will test Ghana's commitment to democratic participation beyond the ballot box.