A History of Patronage and Politicization

The Ghana Armed Forces have their origins in the colonial Royal West African Frontier Force (RWAFF) (Gutteridge Reference Gutteridge1966; Aboagye Reference Aboagye1999; Addae Reference Addae2005). The Gold Coast Regiment of the RWAFF officially became the Ghana Army on March 6, 1957, and in 1960, the army was combined with the Ghana Navy and the Ghana Air Force to form the Ghana Armed Forces (Hutchful Reference Hutchful1983). At independence, the Ghanaian military inherited the British command structure as well as its notion of an “apolitical armed forces” —a military that in theory did not interfere in politics (Gutteridge Reference Gutteridge1966:32).Footnote ⁴ The apolitical façade, joint training exercises, secondments, and cadet training at various foreign institutions enabled post-independence Ghanaian governments to temporarily achieve “civilian supremacy” over the military in the early independence years (Kemp & Hudlin Reference Kemp and Hudlin1992:8). However, the status quo did not last long, as the military soon began to intervene in the country’s political processes (First Reference First1970; Ocran Reference Ocran1977).

With the exception of the government of Hilla Limann—in office for less than two years and under probation of the military rulers of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council after the coup of 1979 (Oquaye Reference Oquaye2004)—almost all governments in Ghana have tried to control the military. Kwame Nkrumah’s government, in an effort to gain a foothold in the barracks, interfered in the military’s internal affairs by dismissing two influential generals, Stephen Otu and Joseph Arthur Ankrah (Welch Reference Welch and Welch1970), as these senior officers opposed the president’s moves. Nkrumah also tried to diminish the armed forces’ socio-political influence through the use of informers within the ranks, and established an army within the armed forces, the President’s Own Guard Regiment (POGR), which was directly under Nkrumah’s command (Welch Reference Welch and Welch1970). The POGR, advised by Soviet security specialists, was also lavishly equipped at the expense of the needs of the regular army (Welch Reference Welch and Welch1970). Some of my respondents who served during Nkrumah’s rule noted that, had his plans succeeded, the military would have become docile and susceptible to manipulation by the political class for generations to come. Unfortunately for Nkrumah, his machinations triggered a coup that overthrew his government. Even then, the junta leaders of the National Liberation Council began talks immediately after the coup to hand over power to a civilian government, and the transfer of power eventually happened in 1969 (Austin & Luckham Reference Austin and Luckham1975).

Between 1969 and 1972, the government of Kofi Abrefa Busia also endeavored to gain control over the barracks. Fearing a military coup, his party—the Progress Party—sought to reduce the influence of the military in the Ghanaian political arena. Busia’s government prohibited the training of the troops, which led to a depreciation of professional standards. His government also forced about half of the senior officers (holding ranks of lieutenant colonel and above) into retirement or semi-retirement, a move that not only deprived the military of skilled and experienced officers who could pass their knowledge on to younger officers, but also stripped the institution of officers who possessed the stature to withstand pressures from the governing elite (Baynham Reference Baynham1978:27).

Additional acts of interference by the Progress Party included manipulating ethnic divisions and tensions within the barracks by replacing non-Akans who held strategic command positions with Akans.Footnote ⁵ “Officers,” observed Colonel Ignatius Kutu Acheampong, leader of the coup that later overthrew the government of the Progress Party, “were put in certain positions to suit the whims of Busia and his colleagues” (Baynham Reference Baynham1978:31). Thus, the Progress Party politicized the Ghana Armed Forces through tribalistic appointments and through promotions that were based not on merit but rather on ethnicity and political affiliation.

The party’s actions were intended to enable the political class to secure the loyalty of its supporters within the barracks, thereby minimizing the chances of a coup. But the manipulative interventions weakened the military’s internal structures and generated uncertainties about career progression among soldiers (Baynham Reference Baynham1978). This led to envy within the barracks and animosity toward the government, resulting in disaffection that brought the barracks together against the Progress Party and triggered the coup that was led by Acheampong (who was ironically an Akan officer) in February 1972.

From 1993 to 2000, under the presidency of Jerry Rawlings, the military appeared to have become a constituency of Rawlings’ National Democratic Congress (NDC) and a full-blown political actor. Rawlings, junta leader of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) following the establishment of Ghana’s 4th Republic in 1992, had morphed into a democratically elected president in January 1993 after establishing the NDC as an offshoot of the PNDC. Under Rawlings, soldiers were appointed to political positions as heads of civilian institutions, and serving officers openly engaged in partisan political activities. As further indication of the politicization of the Ghana Armed Forces, the militia (64 Infantry Regiment), a relic of the PNDC era that was under the direct control of the president, had migrated with Rawlings into his reign (Agyeman-Duah Reference Agyeman-Duah2002). After 2001, the militia became part of the Ghana Armed Forces and was renamed 64 Infantry Regiment (Ansah-Koi Reference Ansah-Koi and Boafo-Arthur2007; Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019).

While previous attempts by various presidents to politicize the Ghana Armed Forces had resulted in coups, Rawlings succeeded in gaining control over the military and obtaining the loyalty of the soldiers. A commissioned officer, he knew the institution inside and out, which contributed to his success. My interlocutors assert that he ran a patronage scheme in which he rewarded officers with ranks, promotions, and appointments, placing his allies in strategic positions—an example being the appointment of his confidante and fellow tribesman Major Courage Quashigah as the commanding officer of 64 Infantry Regiment (cf. Oostrom & Gukurume Reference Oostrom and Gukurume2022).

It should be noted that Rawlings did more than transform the military into political powerbrokers. He initiated a much-needed transformation in the barracks at a time when the armed forces were in dire straits, appointing well-regarded generals (such as Arnold Quainoo, Winston Mensa-Wood, and Ben Akafia) to run the armed forces (Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019; Oquaye Reference Oquaye2004). Still, with the establishment of 64 Infantry Regiment, Rawlings had essentially created a better equipped parallel military, while gradually disarming the regular armed forces (Oquaye Reference Oquaye2004). According to interlocutors who served during Rawlings’ tenure, the members of 64 Infantry Regiment were especially loyal to Rawlings, since they received extra incentives for performing such activities as escorting and protecting the president: “They were Rawlings’ babies so they got better paid than us the regular army people.”Footnote ⁶ This also meant that the ex-militiamen’s welfare was at stake if the regime were to fall, further ensuring their loyalty.

Rawlings’ moves were not motivated by altruism but rather by the recognition that an ailing armed forces could be detrimental to his regime’s survival; he also realized the potential of wayward soldiers to stage a coup against his junta, hence his interventions to transform the barracks. Therefore, although Rawlings’ interventions demoralized and weakened the military and affected esprit de corps and cohesion (Agyeman-Duah Reference Agyeman-Duah2002), his actions also yielded the very results he sought. The regular forces were in tatters and thus could not rebel against him, while the influential 64 Infantry Regiment firmly supported him. As was the case under Busia, the regular military was not allowed to undertake training exercises; the soldiers of 64 Infantry Regiment, on the other hand, were obliged to partake in exercises (Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019). Respondents who served under Rawlings further note that the regular soldiers were held to military regulations in the barracks, while the militiamen of 64 Infantry Regiment were exempted from these; commanders of the regular military could not hold the militiamen to disciplinary standards, as they were not officially part of the military. In short, morale, military discipline, and professional standards diminished drastically due to Rawlings’ brand of politicization.

A New Era of Patronage: Kufuor’s Administration

Patronage exchanges are two-way engagements (or negotiations) between political and military leaders, with which the political class aims to extract loyalty from the Ghanaian military through politicization. When Rawlings’ presidency ended in 2000, he left Ghana’s security sector in a poor state. This provided an opportunity for the new government, led by John Kufuor of the New Patriotic Party, to make amends with the security sector (including the military) and gain its support and trust—that is, loyalty (Ansah-Koi Reference Ansah-Koi and Boafo-Arthur2007)—through patronage engagements (cf. Oostrom & Gukurume Reference Oostrom and Gukurume2022). In short, the early 2000s can be seen as the starting point of the new era of such interactions.

At the start of Kufuor’s tenure, his government invested heavily in the security sector. He acquired modern communication equipment and vehicles, increased salaries, and substantially improved the conditions of service for all personnel (Ansah-Koi Reference Ansah-Koi and Boafo-Arthur2007). The administration further initiated numerous infrastructural projects, including building the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC) for the Ghana Armed Forces. In the words of an interlocutor, “The new minister of defence, Dr Addo Kufuor, started project after project. He built us a new assembly hall, Burma Hall. We just had to support them.”Footnote ⁷

Where his predecessors had focused largely on securing loyalty by establishing patronage networks with individuals within and at the apex of the military hierarchy, Kufuor’s brand of patronage, according to a senior serving military officer, was geared toward rallying the whole institution behind him. The aforementioned interventions, which served to boost military morale, set the new government on the path to achieving its aims.

Many officers believe that the success of Kufuor’s government with the military has inspired subsequent presidents to copy his approach, seeking to obtain loyalty from the institution as a whole. But such ventures are tricky for both political and military leaders. Senior military interlocutors noted that high-ranking officers are aware of the need to avoid being seen as engaging in patronage-type relations with the political class, as this would damage their reputation in the barracks. Military leaders who engage in politics and patronage exchanges are considered unprofessional, or worse, “bootlickers”; they are viewed as puppets of the politicians who appointed them and not as independent leaders.Footnote ⁸

Nevertheless, the “intrusion of politics” (Sørensen Reference Sørensen, Madsen, Nielsen and Skoda2011:234) remains a problem. Competent officers with no political affiliations believe they are being overlooked in favor of those associated with the political class, who receive prestigious offices and promotions. My senior serving military interlocutors with in-depth knowledge of these matters echoed the sentiment, noting that eligibility for key positions is frequently based on political affiliation rather than on merit, which is widely apparent: “We know ourselves. We know who is good and who is not.”Footnote ⁹ Thus, appointees to these offices enjoy less support from the barracks: “They are tolerated, but not respected.”Footnote ¹⁰

For the political class on the other hand, not having the backing of the whole military would mean, a senior officer observes, that the government would have to tread carefully in order not to provoke hostility and lose control of the country’s security apparatus. This is a particularly uncomfortable position for the Ghanaian political elite to hold, given the military’s history of coups. To generate support from and control over the barracks, Ghana’s political class have over time resorted to a variety of tactics, a mixture of past methods (such as biased appointments) and new methods akin to the Kufuor administration’s modus operandi of executing projects to entice the whole institution (cf. Miscoiu & Kakdeu Reference Miscoiu and Kakdeu2021).

New Patriotic Party (NPP) versus National Democratic Congress (NDC)

The key players in the current era of politicization and patronage exchanges involving the Ghana Armed Forces are the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC). Political actors including the ruling NPP have accused the NDC of being in bed with the military, due to the party’s connection to Rawlings (Agyeman-Duah Reference Agyeman-Duah2002). According to my military interlocutors who support the NPP, their party is less tied to the military, and therefore has to work harder to earn the trust and loyalty of soldiers. Since the early 2000s, during Kufuor’s administration, the NPP has consistently worked on establishing patronage relationships within the barracks. Currently, there is a lot of sod cutting for initiatives in the barracks by the NPP government, which according to my respondents generates the impression that the NPP is trying to entice and appease the military.Footnote ¹¹

Political and military pundits observe that new projects often spring up in the military barracks in the final years of any Ghanaian president’s tenure. Soldiers believe that these projects are part of the electioneering process, geared toward winning their sympathies and soliciting their votes for the ruling political party (Ravanilla, Haim, & Hilken Reference Ravanilla, Haim and Hicken2022). After general elections, the new president usually meets with soldiers in the barracks; my military interlocutors who have participated in these events note that they serve as a means to introduce the barracks to the new president, and to present a new Chief of Defence Staff, who is usually appointed around inauguration time. But serving soldiers also believe that, unofficially, the first visit by the ruling elite is aimed at convincing the barracks that the new government is an ally, that it is concerned with soldiers’ welfare, and will ensure, with the help of the new CDS, that the military’s needs are met (Erdmann & Engel Reference Erdmann and Engel2007). For instance, after Ghana’s current president, Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo, was inaugurated in January 2017, he attended the Ghana Armed Forces’ end-of-year get-together, where he announced the increment of peacekeeping allowances from $31 to $35, and reminded soldiers that this had been a major campaign promise of the NPP to the barracks.Footnote ¹² He further promised, among other things, to provide accommodation facilities to soldiers and to retool the military. In the president’s words:

One sees how, in the above quote, the president draws attention to what was promised and delivered, while making additional promises. Media reports and promotions by the NPP’s propaganda division suggest that the ruling party has initiated more projects in the military barracks in recent years.Footnote ¹⁴ But my respondents in the barracks are sceptical about the motives behind these endeavors. They view these initiatives, as well as the organized durbars and speeches associated with their presentation, as calculated reminders of what the political class has done and intends to do for the military—a ploy to engage the barracks in patronage exchanges (Oostrom & Gukurume Reference Oostrom and Gukurume2022).

The following words from Vice President Mahamadu Bawumia were met with similar scepticism: “Government is aware of the numerous challenges facing the Ghana Armed Forces […]. Looking back, the Ministry of Roads and Highways started the rehabilitation of roads within the various barracks in 2016.”Footnote ¹⁵ Like Akufo-Addo’s speech above, the Vice President’s speech mentions specific and concrete projects in an attempt to underscore the government’s past efforts in dealing with the issues facing the military. The barracks see this, and the reminder that the government is aware of the difficulties the military faces, as being geared toward politicking. In short, efforts by the political class to portray itself as a trustworthy partner by emphasizing kept election promises are invariably regarded as attempts at enticing the military institution into patronage exchanges.

The NDC, despite its longstanding ties with the military, is similarly perceived as engaging in patronage exchanges and awarding of favors to the military when in office. From 2008 to 2016, when the party was in power, it adopted the Kufuor blueprint for establishing patronage networks and strengthening existing relationships, expanding accommodation facilities and purchasing vehicles and aircrafts for the military.Footnote ¹⁶ Now, without access to state coffers or the ability to promote soldiers, the NDC uses its public utterances to validate supporters in the barracks who believe they have been bypassed for promotions, encouraging them to keep faith for better days when the NDC returns to power.Footnote ¹⁷ For instance, in his 2020 elections message to the security forces including the military, the party’s flagbearer, John Dramani Mahama, promised (among other things) depoliticization, fair promotions, and the re-instatement of time-tested conventions, rules, and regulations within these institutions.Footnote ¹⁸

Although Ghana’s prominent political parties relate differently to the military, both parties aim to forestall interventions by the Ghana Armed Forces in the political arena, while also trying to gain a foothold within the ranks of this powerful player. Thus, according to my interlocutors, initiatives by the political class, regardless of whether they belong to the NPP or the NDC, are viewed by the military as devices to gain control over their institution.

Patronage Exchanges Between Powerful Actors

Patronage exchanges—give-and-take or two-way exchanges/negotiations—between politicians and the military in Ghana play out both at the individual and institutional levels. It is important to emphasize the reciprocity and the mutuality of patronage exchanges, which by definition do not depend on any one side alone. The notion of exchange is important: the military is not always being seduced by political actors. Rather, there are military operatives who actively seek out and engage in these relationships, the returns of which can include favors, expressions of loyalty, and (as discussed above) promotions and appointments to prestigious or lucrative offices. In Ghana’s political system, which is modelled after that of the United States, the president wields extensive executive powers. The president and the 275-member parliament are elected every four years through universal adult suffrage. But despite Ghana’s democratic system and its reputation for peace, the political class, according to my respondents with intimate knowledge of these affairs, generally needs the military’s loyalty and support—tacit or explicit—to personalize and expand its power. One example of this is that, during the elections of 2016, Charlotte Osei, then chairperson for Ghana’s Electoral Commission, and Mahama, the incumbent president, sought clearance from the upper echelons of the Ghana Armed Forces before the final results were announced and the president finally conceded defeat to the current president, Akuffo-Addo (Awuni Reference Awuni2019).Footnote ¹⁹

When clientelistic exchanges involving promotions and appointments at the apex of the military’s chain of command take place, it is usually the case that ambitious senior officers are motivated to mobilize their relations in corridors of power for prestigious appointments. My respondents observed that such politicking usually starts approximately halfway through the tenure of a sitting president/ruling government, reaching its peak in election season as senior officers vying for prestigious appointments—Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and service command positions such as Chief of Naval Staff, Chief of Army Staff, or Chief of Air Staff—align themselves with the party of their preference, usually the anticipated winner(s) of the election.

Since it is forbidden for soldiers to openly engage in partisan politics, military operatives are not active members of the parties they support, and they do not go on the campaign trail. According to my interlocutors, they instead offer various behind-the-scenes services, such as logistical support, security provisions, and strategic or tactical advice. Retired military officers have also been known to use their knowledge and foreign contacts to recruit foreign military contractors who train political vigilante groups and the security details of political parties (Gyampo, Graham, & Asare Reference Gyampo, Graham and Asare2017; Paalo Reference Paalo2017).

Soldiers of lower rank with ties to political “big men” (Nugent Reference Nugent1995:12) use their connections to gain access to the corridors of power. They may, for instance, lobby to be deployed on guard duties at the “Jubilee House”—Ghana’s presidential residence and political powerbase—as this can pave the way to joining the entourage of powerful political actors such as the president, vice president, or the president’s chief of staff. According to one commanding officer who has overseen such soldiers, being part of these circles can be lucrative; on top of their monthly salary, soldiers receive extra financial incentives for services such as participating in presidential escorts. Soldiers also hope to forge relationships with political bigwigs through such deployments, as these contacts are thought to become useful in the future, when they retire and are applying for employment outside the barracks. A recommendation from a prominent political figure can do wonders in Ghana, where jobs are scarce and unemployment is rife (GSS 2014). Sometimes soldiers previously deployed to “Jubilee House” re-enter politicians’ entourages as personal bodyguards or security advisors upon retirement from the military. There is also the prestige associated with certain deployments. In the words of a regimental sergeant major who assigns soldiers’ deployments, “It is important for some guys to be seen in the entourage of powerful political people. That makes them look good to their mates.”Footnote ²⁰ In short, soldiers engaging in clientelistic relations with political actors hope not only to benefit professionally but also socially, by enhancing their status within the barracks (Ravanilla, Haim, & Hilken Reference Ravanilla, Haim and Hicken2022).

Engagements of military actors in patronage exchanges can have detrimental effects at the institutional as well as the individual level. According to commanders, soldiers lobbying for lucrative and prestigious offices view themselves as being in competition with one another, and the perception in the barracks is that those who were appointed gained their offices based not on merit but on lobbying skills. Soldiers with no access to powerful political figures believe that, no matter how qualified or talented they are, they will be overlooked in favor of less qualified but politically savvy and well-connected colleagues. This view leads to envy among peers and, according to commanders, a decreased level of support for soldiers who secure prestigious appointments. Additionally, such leaders are dogged by questions about their suitability for their elevated position, with subordinates harboring misgivings about the qualifications and command capabilities of their leaders. My interlocutors who are serving senior officers note that this situation translates into a reduction of internal cohesion in the barracks, which can affect the military’s effectiveness.

Lobbying by soldiers for deployment to centers of power and the attendant competition among peers for appointments and offices have, according to military leaders, led to a depreciation of military discipline in the Ghana Armed Forces. Military discipline here entails “the totality of an individual’s conformity to a prescribed role depending on one’s task in the military, informing one’s behaviour, attitudes, beliefs, values, and definitions” (Arkin & Dobrofsky Reference Arkin and Dobrofsky1978:60). Military commanders note the difficultly of handling soldiers who have been deployed to the centers of power, as these officers begin to feel more connected to the political realm than to the military. There have been instances of soldiers who refused to return to their units after deployment to the “Jubilee House,” while some who did return refused to take orders from their superiors.

The Politicization of the Military

Ghana’s constitution grants the president the prerogative to appoint the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) as well as the commanders of the army, air force, and navy, thus making these appointments a political affair (Aning Reference Aning and Agyeman-Duah2008:323).Footnote ²¹ Unlike the appointments of the aforementioned leaders, the selection of commanders within the military is officially administrative, a privilege of the military system (Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019). The perception in the Ghanaian barracks, however, is that these appointments are increasingly being politicized, especially the nominations for commanders of units deemed “sensitive” due to their history and their place as key units in Ghana’s security infrastructure: the Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment, 5th Infantry Battalion, 1st Infantry Battalion, Airborne Force, 64 Infantry Regiment, and 66th Artillery Regiment (Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019). For instance, there was the case of a senior officer from 64 Infantry Regiment who was seconded to the National Security Ministry as a director of operations. This officer and operatives under his command attacked journalists, which resulted in a huge public outcry.Footnote ²² The Ghanaian government was forced to terminate the officer’s assignment and return him to his military unit. The Ghanaian public was expecting the officer to be punished for these breaches, but he was instead appointed the commanding officer of the influential 64 Infantry Regiment, resulting in more condemnation.Footnote ²³ Such cases feed into and strengthen perceptions of politicization in the barracks.

Soldiers familiar with the matter observe that their institution is being politicized through the redistribution of resources. The president, given the prerogative to appoint military leaders, redistributes resources by promoting allies to key military positions with the aim of extracting loyalty from them. Appointments and promotions within the military are used as bargaining chips in patronage exchanges between politicians and top military commanders. Political patrons not only have their trusted associates appointed to desirable key offices, but also often keep senior officers under their control with further promises and post-retirement offers. In recent years, it has become common practice for senior commanders to be appointed upon retirement as “Ghana’s ambassadors” to various places (Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019). In the barracks, these posts are assumed to be rewards for services rendered to political patrons (cf. Oostrom & Gukurume Reference Oostrom and Gukurume2022; Miscoiu & Kakdeu Reference Miscoiu and Kakdeu2021).

Furthermore, retired senior military commanders have been known to offer their knowledge, skills, and contacts to the party responsible for their appointment to prestigious and lucrative offices. For example, the NDC announced the appointment of former CDS Lieutenant General P. Blay to its campaign team for the 2020 elections, and NPP, the current ruling party, once engaged the services of former CDS Lieutenant General JB Danquah.Footnote ²⁴ Although former military commanders engaging in politics is not a new phenomenon in Ghana, such activities are still frowned upon in the barracks, where they strengthen the view that the institution is being politicized.

Despite all this, the Ghanaian military as an institution maintains that it is politically neutral. “We are not into politics, but politics is into us,” an interlocutor quipped, referring to the fixation that the Ghanaian political class is viewed as harboring for the Ghana Armed Forces.Footnote ²⁵ This notion of political neutrality is of central importance to the military, and it is backed by regulations and codes of conduct that guide soldiers’ behavior and activities, as well as by institutional efforts invested in maintaining the military’s neutrality, including public relations and civilian assistance programs. Since the early 1980s, the Ghanaian military has been undergoing a transformation process (Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019) which has converted it into one of the most trusted institutions (Agyeman-Duah Reference Agyeman-Duah2002). The Ghanaian military is very aware of the value of being considered trustworthy and the least corrupt institution in the country (Agyeman-Duah Reference Agyeman-Duah2002). Despite this, it is unable to prevent its individual members from being politicized by the political class in their effort to gain control over the institution for political power.

Politicization of Recruitment through the Protocol List

Jobs are scarce in Ghana, but state institutions such as the Ghana Immigration Service, Ghana Police Service, and the Ghana Armed Forces recruit personnel annually (Agyekum Reference Agyekum2019). Competition is fierce during recruitment rounds, not only among applicants but also in elite circles, with political actors vying to place their wards and other associates in these institutions. Thus, apart from engaging soldiers in patronage networks and exchanges in an effort to gain control over the military, Ghana’s political elite have politicized recruitment, gradually filling the rank and file of the military with political foot soldiers through recruitment from the so-called “protocol list.”Footnote ²⁶

One senior recruitment officer intimated that many influential people, ranging from parliamentarians to political party officials and judges, have had their relatives drafted into the military.Footnote ²⁷ In this way, foot soldiers are drawn into patronage networks, since soldiers who gain their employment through political connections are obliged to return the favor by exhibiting loyalty to their political associates (Clapham Reference Clapham1985; Kitschelt & Wilkinson Reference Kitschelt and Wilkinson2007).Footnote ²⁸

Many soldiers believe that the fixation of Ghana’s political elite on the Ghana Armed Forces is due to the institution’s growing societal reputation as “professional, incorruptible and reliable” (Agyeman-Duah Reference Agyeman-Duah2002:12).Footnote ²⁹ The burgeoning reputation of the Ghanaian military, interlocutors in the barracks claim, is a thorn in the side of the political class, who fear that a reputable and professional military is more difficult to control.Footnote ³⁰ For their part, commanders worry that the practice of recruiting based on affiliations rather than qualifications results in substandard personnel and undercuts the professional standards that the institution strives to uphold.

The rank and file are also aware of this development. In the words of one interlocutor: “Foot soldiers are brought in and their task is to feed their political backers with information on the military establishment.”Footnote ³¹ Another respondent noted that a military staffed with political pawns dances to the tunes of its paymasters and is loyal to the leaders of the political establishment, rather than to military leadership.

In the view of several commanders, politicized recruitment practices must be halted if the Ghanaian military is to maintain high-quality personnel and professional standards. Some in the barracks predict that if the practice continues, a time will come when the rank and file will be split according to their political affiliations. Commanders also worry about a decline in standards of discipline as superiors with no political connections are reluctant to enforce regulations for fear of reprisals from the political backers of subordinates recruited through the protocol list.Footnote ³² In the words of one interlocutor: “We fear the backers of some of the soldiers. They can use their influence to frustrate your promotion or appointments if you want to take on their man. You will be stuck. We have seen it happen.”Footnote ³³ In short, political figures are believed to regularly interfere in disciplinary matters at the unit level, making it difficult for commanders to enforce military discipline, thus depreciating professional standards and disciplinary norms .Footnote ³⁴