Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee, Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, has urged Ghana's political leaders to approach constitutional and governance reforms from a long-term national perspective rather than through the lens of immediate partisan advantage.

Professor Prempeh cautioned against the tendency of governments and opposition parties to assess reform proposals based on whether they stand to benefit politically at a particular point in time.

According to him, constitutional reforms should be designed to serve the enduring interests of the nation, recognising that political fortunes are constantly changing and that today's governing party could easily become tomorrow's opposition.

"We must also know that elections have not always favoured the rich," Professor Prempeh said.

"Otherwise, incumbent governments in Africa would never lose power."

Professor Prempeh rejected the notion that access to state resources automatically guarantees electoral success, noting that history across Africa has repeatedly shown that incumbent governments can be defeated despite significant institutional and financial advantages.

He observed that sitting governments typically command substantial resources and influence, yet opposition parties have, on numerous occasions, succeeded in overcoming those advantages to secure electoral victory.

"The resources available to incumbents in African democracies are enormous, and yet challengers have come from behind and won elections," he noted.

Professor Prempeh suggested that one of the greatest obstacles to meaningful constitutional reform is the tendency of political actors to evaluate proposed changes in light of their current political circumstances.

Speaking in an interview on Accra-based Woezor TV on Sunday, August 2, he explained that governing parties often support reforms they believe will reinforce the advantages of incumbency, while opposition parties frequently resist the same proposals for fear they could be placed at a disadvantage.

According to him, this short-term approach undermines the development of durable constitutional arrangements that should serve all governments and citizens equally.

"I think the reason why we tend to see governments in office always being the ones doing reform is that they think they are going to be the ones benefiting from incumbency," he said.

"Then you have the opposition opposing because they think they are going to be disadvantaged because they are in opposition."

Professor Prempeh stressed, however, that such calculations are often misguided because political power is inherently temporary.

"But these things change," he added.

To reinforce his argument, Professor Prempeh referenced the work of renowned American political philosopher John Rawls, whose theory of justice advocates designing fair institutions without regard to one's own personal interests.

He cited Rawls' concept of the "veil of ignorance", which encourages policymakers to imagine they do not know what position they will occupy in society before establishing the rules that govern it.

According to Professor Prempeh, adopting such an approach would encourage political leaders to develop constitutional reforms that are fair, balanced and sustainable, rather than tailored to benefit whichever party currently holds power.

"One of my favourite philosophers, John Rawls, has this idea called the veil of ignorance," he explained.

"When you are making rules to govern a country or society, you must place yourself behind what he called a veil of ignorance."

He argued that if political actors approached constitutional reform from this perspective, they would be more likely to create institutions capable of serving Ghana effectively regardless of which political party is in government.

Professor Prempeh maintained that constitutional reform should not be viewed through the "vantage point" of present political positions but rather through the broader objective of building stronger democratic institutions for future generations.

He urged both governing and opposition parties to set aside partisan calculations and work towards reforms that promote accountability, fairness and national development.

"What we need to do is look at reforms not from the vantage point of where we are sitting today or where we will be sitting tomorrow," he said.

Instead, he argued, reforms should be assessed according to whether they strengthen governance, protect democratic values and improve the functioning of the state over the long term.