Although it has been criticized for sidelining opposition parties and breeding deep seated division in the country, the existing electoral system of First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) or Winner-Takes-All has been upheld by a number of academics and politicians as against proportional representation (PR), which in theory, appears more representative.

It was the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) that prompted the debate, and Dr. Vladmir Antwi Danso of the University of Ghana who was the chief proponent for the winner-takes-all system did not see why the system should be abandoned. He said the problems seen of the system are due to abuse.

"When we win elections we forget that we won it for the nation," adding that "when institutionalism works well then the winner takes all will not be winner takes all." Strengthening the existing institutions, he kept emphasizing, was for him what needed to be done in the country.

"Ghana has tried and tested the FPTP. What is needed is the strengthening of the props that sustain the system. The way forward lies therefore in strengthening State institutions, which in and by themselves are neutral to "representation."

This position was to be supported later by contributors like Prof. Mike Oquaye, Hon. Frema Opare, Prof. Agyeman Badu Akosa, and Frances Asiam.

Prof. Oquaye, Second Deputy Speaker of Parliament, particularly thought that the PR system would rather fan ethnic conflicts in the country. He thus called for the strengthening of the main political traditions and the deepening of decentralization where DCEs are elected to"defuse" the Winner-Takes-All syndrome.

On the other side of the debate was Prof. Ken Attafuah, Executive Director of the Justice and Human Rights Institute, who was emphatic that the Winner-Takes-All system was inimical to nation building and that it had the tendency to undermine the foundations of multi-party democracy. He said excessive partisanship has perennially undermined the national interest and State agenda and that the NPP and the NDC "seem incapable of moving jointly on many issues of key importance to the nation due to excessive disdain and mistrust."

He said charlatan politicians have, because of electoral politics, exploited ethnicity to their advantage such that it has become "a source of great social fracture and unhealthy fragmentation in Ghanaian society..."

The dangers of ethnicity in Ghanaian politics, he further noted, has been compounded by the constitutional arrangement which requires a candidate to obtain a simple majority votes of 50% + 1 to become president. "This electoral formula effectively means that a person can be elected president of Ghana with a total of 50% plus one votes garnered from two or three regions of the country that may be dominated by particular ethnic groups supportive of that candidate.

It is conceivable that the system of Winner-Takes-All may lead to the creation of a virtual one party state in Ghana." Ghana, he therefore suggested, should begin to "take the first tentative steps" and "explore" the possibility of introducing proportional representation.

"A constitutional amendment that requires a prospective president to obtain a simple majority in each region of the country may help attenuate the adverse effects of ethnic politics and contribute to fostering national unity.

Additionally, the principle of proportional representation.... may be adopted as Ghana's principal electoral formula."

The system in question, experts admit, is not an easily understandable one in view of the varied ways in which it manifests itself. Indeed, the Electoral Commissioner, Dr. Afari Gyan, indicated that the committee of experts that worked on the 1992 constitution actually suggested proportional representation. It was however rejected by the consultative assembly on the basis that "it would be too difficult for the people to understand."

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Proportional Representation as "an electoral system designed to represent in a legislative body each political group or party in proportion"to its actual voting strength in the electorate." Dr. Afari Gyan gave various forms of PR including the "closed list Proportional Representation. Here, seats are distributed to the contesting political parties on the basis of their respective percentage shares of the total valid votes cast in an election.

"So suppose three parties contested elections for 100 parliamentary seats under the PR formula and party A got 40%, party B35%, and party C 25% of the total votes cast, Party A would get 40 seats, party B 35 seats and party C 25 seats."

Certainly, the existing system of winner-takes-all has done very little to equalize the imbalances in the representation of ethnic, women, youth and other groups in the decision making process. It has also been accused of being responsible for the polarization of the country along extreme partisan lines.

As Ms. Adjoa Yeboah Afari, Chairperson of the Editors Forum would have it, "even in the market, people know which cassava seller belongs to which party and will buy from them accordingly."

Also, a Senior Fellow of the IEA, Brig. Gen. Francis Agyemfra noted that "there is concern that if this system is not revised, it could be a recipe for political conflict and would work against national unity."

The alternative - proportional representation - is in practice in a number of countries around the world including African countries like South Africa, Algeria, Angola and Burkina Faso. But some are not certain that it would offer Ghana anything better by way of inclusiveness and national unity.

Prof. Miranda Greenstreet of the University of Ghana for instance fears that the system could actually underline the "World Bank" syndrome or the formation of small ethnically based parties.

It does appear therefore that a lot of thinking and consensus building would have to be done in order to either evolve a new system or better the existing one to ensure the full participation and representation of every stakeholder in the Ghanaian polity whilst at the same time fostering national cohesion.