The United States (US) government has recently introduced a new visa restriction policy aimed at individuals believed to be undermining democracy in Ghana, especially in the context of the crucial December 7, 2024 general election.
The aim is to encourage a peaceful, transparent and credible electoral process by targeting those believed to be involved in electoral manipulation, violence or actions that suppress freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression.
The policy affects specific individuals involved and their immediate family members.
Announcing the policy, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken stated that the measure was not intended to affect the general public or the Ghanaian government. Instead, it specifically focuses on individuals whose actions threaten the democratic process.
The US has previously implemented similar visa restrictions in other nations to safeguard democratic integrity.
In Nigeria, for example, visa restrictions were put in place ahead of the 2023 general election, targeting individuals believed to compromise democratic principles.
In addition to visa restrictions, the United States is taking steps to confiscate the assets of individuals believed to be undermining democracy.
A recent example is the action taken against specific officials in Georgia such as Zviad Kharazishvili, the Director of the Special Tasks Department of Georgia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, along with his deputy, Mileri Lagazauri.
Media figures such as Konstantine Morgoshia and his associate Zurab Makharadze have also faced asset confiscation for their roles in subverting democratic processes.
Implications for democracy in Ghana
The introduction of these measures signifies a strong commitment by the US to bolster democratic principles globally and has several important implications for democracy in Ghana.
First, it sends a strong message of support for Ghanaians’ desire for a democratic and transparent electoral process. By emphasising the necessity for fairness, it encourages pro-democracy organisations and individuals to promote an electoral atmosphere that genuinely reflects the will of the people.
Furthermore, it serves to demonstrate US disapproval of the undemocratic tendencies exhibited by certain individuals within state institutions who can impact the electoral landscape.
Second, these visa restrictions serve as a deterrent against anti-democratic activities. By holding specific individuals accountable, the US can dissuade actions such as electoral fraud or the suppression of freedoms.
This focus on targeted individuals reinforces the importance of integrity within the electoral process.
Moreover, since the restrictions extend to the immediate family members of those involved, there is an added layer of accountability, as family members may seek to influence one another to avoid implicating each other in undemocratic actions.
Third, this policy provides crucial backing for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and the media, empowering them to hold accountable those engaging in undemocratic practices.
It offers these entities valuable tools to challenge actions that violate human rights. Journalists and activists, who often find themselves vulnerable to security forces that undermine their rights, can leverage this support to advocate greater accountability and adherence to the rule of law without fear for their lives.
Fourth, the US initiative may spur allied nations to adopt similar restrictions against individuals undermining democracy, thus amplifying international pressure on anti-democratic Ghanaian political actors.
A collective action can encourage all participants in the electoral process—including officials of the Electoral Commission—to uphold democratic norms and practices and strengthen support for democratic processes in Ghana.
Finally, by holding states democratically accountable, the US action helps globally to reinforce the importance of adhering to democratic principles and human rights.
Challenges
While the policy presents many positive implications for Ghana’s democracy, the United States’ moral authority is challengeable.
This is particularly relevant given the presence of former President Donald Trump—who is linked to the events of the January 6th Capitol riot—on the ballot for potential re-election.
Critics might argue that for the US to effectively advocate democracy worldwide, it must first uphold its democratic standards. Any perceived inconsistencies could undermine the credibility of its foreign policy.
Additionally, one may ask, “Who granted the US the role of a global ‘big brother’ to enforce policies selectively?”
There are concerns that these policies might target specific individuals or groups, while overlooking others who engage in similar undemocratic behaviours, thereby fostering perceptions of bias and unfairness.
Furthermore, there is a question about the effectiveness of visa restrictions designed to deter undemocratic actions.
Critics may argue that individuals committed to undermining democracy are unlikely to be deterred by travel bans, even if they wished to visit the US which is by no means certain.
Moreover, there are serious concerns about the unintended consequences of such visa restrictions on the families of those affected.
Many may struggle to reunite with loved ones in the US and other US-allied countries due to these limitations.
Finally, it has been suggested that there are more constructive ways to foster democracy. Approaches such as providing support to civil society organisations, promoting education and encouraging international cooperation could be more effective than punitive measures.
In summary, the United States’ new visa restriction policy is a significant step towards promoting democracy in Ghana.
It not only demonstrates a commitment to supporting fair electoral practices but also encourages local actors and the international community to work collaboratively in safeguarding democracy. However, there are some challenges.
Source: Graphic online
