Last week some Ghanaians took to the streets under the banner “Attack on Democracy.” Members marched to the Presidency with a petition.
Their claim was direct: key democratic institutions are being compromised, and government must be checked in public.
That is what demonstrations are for. They signal concern. They release pressure. They put on record that not everyone agrees. But in a constitutional republic, the real test begins after the crowd goes home.
From Nkrumah to Today: A Political Habit
Ghana knows protest well. In the Nkrumah era, mass rallies won independence. Afterward, the same energy was turned inward.
Dissent became subversion. The Preventive Detention Act meant you could be jailed for speaking out. The years after were about bread and butter. Students, workers, and market women marched against price hikes and shortages.
Under military rule, strikes shut the country down. Those protests did not always deliver democracy, but they forced governments to reverse wages and prices. Since the 1992 Constitution, protest has been a constitutional right.
Article 21 guarantees freedom of assembly. What followed is familiar: UTAG and TEWU strikes, OccupyGhana, #DumsorMustStop, #FixTheCountry, and now “Attack on Democracy.” The thread is simple. “When the river is in flood, even the dry logs float.” People take to the street when they feel normal channels are closed.
The African and Global Record
Across Africa, demonstrations have brought both change and damage. Kenya: Post-election protests forced a coalition government.
Many people died. Burkina Faso: sustained protests pushed out a president chasing a third term. Sudan: months of sit-ins ended a long military regime.
Nigeria: #EndSARS shifted public debate on policing, but structural reform stalled. In developed democracies, protest is part of the routine. The US Civil Rights marches led to law. France’s Yellow Vests won budget concessions.
UK anti-austerity marches did not topple a government, but they shaped policy and public memory. The lesson holds. Protest can raise the political cost of a decision.
It does not replace the institutions that must carry out that decision. “You do not use the same cutlass to clear the farm and to carve a stool.” The street and the chamber do different work.
What “Attack on Democracy” Actually Does
Three things happen immediately. First, visibility. A march puts an issue on the national agenda that could otherwise die in committee.
The government must now respond in public. Second, mobilization. It reminds citizens that politics is not only voting every few years. It builds civic energy. Third, leverage. A petition and media coverage create a record.
That record matters for what comes next. What a march does not do is write law, judge cases, or run institutions. If the objective is to confront what was termed an “Attack on Democracy,” the process cannot stop at the Presidency’s gate.
It must continue with legal action in the courts where constitutional breaches are alleged, with formal motions in Parliament to demand answers, and with sustained monitoring of state institutions.
The petition should be the opening statement, not the final word. Without that follow-through, the demonstration becomes an event, not an outcome.
If the Street Is Not Enough: Other Tools
The Constitution gives us more than the right to assemble. We use some tools and ignore others.
- Litigation. The Supreme Court has settled election disputes before. Petitions and judicial review are slow, but their rulings bind government. More cases, filed earlier, would help.
- Parliamentary work. The minority has real power: urgent questions, Public Accounts Committee hearings, budget scrutiny. A well-documented minority report does more damage to bad policy than any slogan.
- Independent monitoring. The media, universities, and civil society groups must track appointments, procurement, and decisions of public bodies in real time and publish what they find.
- Structured dialogue. The NCCE and National Peace Council can convene, but only with clear terms and deadlines. Dialogue without deliverables is just delay. “The eye that does not sleep sees what the sleeping eye misses.” Governance is not corrected by noise. It is corrected by persistence inside institutions.
Responsibilities To organizers: Keep protests lawful and focused. The moment property is destroyed or people are intimidated, public support collapses and the message is lost.
To government: Do not answer every protest with force or dismissal. Answer with facts. If the claim is false, show the record. If it is true, correct it.
To institutions: The EC, Police and Judiciary must prove impartiality, not only in law but in practice. Perceived bias is what drives people from offices to the streets.
To citizens: Democracy is not a spectator sport. Vote. Read manifestos. Attend constituency meetings. Hold your representative to account between elections.
Conclusion
Demonstrations are not governance. They are a check on governance. A march will not by itself fix an institution. But if it leads to a court case, a parliamentary probe, and better public scrutiny, then it has served a purpose.
If it ends at a press conference, we will be back on the street with a new slogan. A healthy democracy needs both protest and process.
One without the other gives us either chaos or complacency. The crowd has made its point. The work now moves to the chambers, the courts, and the newsroom. That is where the durability of democracy is tested.
The writer, Dr. Ebenezer Arthur Duncan, is a lecturer at University of Professional Studies, Marketing Department.
