The governance philosophy of Ghana’s Second Republic remains highly relevant to the country’s democratic development, with its emphasis on constitutionalism, human dignity, rural development, education, responsible government and social welfare still offering important lessons for contemporary leaders.
Former Energy Minister and leading member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Hon. Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh, made the observation in London on Sunday when he delivered the keynote address at the 2026 Busia Institute Lecture.
The lecture, held at the London Hilton on Park Lane, was organised under the broad theme, “Centre-Right Political Thought in Africa: The Ghanaian Experience,” and focused on “The Governance Vision of Ghana’s Second Republic: Contemporary Relevance for Democratic Leadership and National Development.”
The event marked the first international edition of the Busia Institute Lecture and brought together former President John Agyekum Kufuor, political leaders, scholars, policymakers, members of the diplomatic community, public servants, students and members of the Ghanaian diaspora.
Dr Matthew Opoku Prempeh said although the governmenrural the former prime Minister Kofi Abrefa Busia remained in office for only about 27 months before the military coup of January 13, 1972, its philosophy and institutional legacy continued to occupy an important place in Ghana’s constitutional and developmental history.
He argued that the Busia administration deserved particular recognition for restoring constitutional government, pursuing a morally serious programme of governance and advancing an ambitious development agenda.
According to him, the administration’s work remained unfinished not necessarily because its central vision had failed, but because its tenure was abruptly terminated by military intervention.
Constitutionalism and restraint.
Dr Prempeh said the Second Republic provided an important demonstration of how political power could be exercised within constitutional limits.
The Second Republic was inaugurated on October 1, 1969, following more than three years of military rule.
He noted that the Constitution restored elected civilian government, Parliament and fundamental rights while reinforcing the authority of the courts and subjecting the executive to legislative scrutiny.
He said Busia’s government understood that democratic leadership was not simply about winning elections but also about accepting institutional restraints on executive power.
“Power must kneel to law,” Dr Prempeh said, stressing the importance of institutions capable of checking the excesses of governments.
He noted that despite the Progress Party’s commanding parliamentary majority, the Busia administration did not attempt to undermine Parliament, control the courts or suppress political opposition.
Citizens, he said, were able to criticise the government, newspapers were able to debate public policy and political opponents were able to challenge government decisions through institutional channels.
For Dr Prempeh, that experience remains particularly relevant to Ghana’s Fourth Republic.
He argued that the strength of democracy should not be measured by the absence of criticism but by the ability of institutions to accommodate disagreement peacefully.
He cited Busia’s observation that there could be no true democracy without free expression of opinion in public affairs and criticism of the ruling body.
Coup was not a verdict on democracy
Dr Prempeh also challenged the tendency to interpret the overthrow of civilian governments by military coups as evidence that such governments had necessarily failed.
He said the fact that soldiers succeeded in overthrowing a constitutional government could not, by itself, constitute a moral or political justification for the coup.
According to him, military intervention on January 13, 1972, did not correct Ghana’s democracy but interrupted it.
He urged historians and political actors to judge governments by their policies, decisions and performance rather than by the mere fact that they were eventually overthrown.
Busia’s democratic welfare society
At the heart of Dr Prempeh’s presentation was the concept of the “democratic welfare society,” which he described as one of the most important elements of Busia’s political philosophy.
He explained that the concept sought to combine political freedom with social and economic opportunity.
According to him, Busia understood that democratic rights could not have their full meaning for citizens who lacked access to education, healthcare, clean water, employment and basic infrastructure.
“Liberty without opportunity,” Dr Prempeh argued, “is a promise made only to those who are already comfortable.”
He said the Busia philosophy therefore rejected both excessive state control and a system in which government abandoned vulnerable citizens to their circumstances.
Instead, it sought a balance between individual freedom, personal responsibility, private initiative, community participation and the social responsibility of government.
Dr Prempeh said Busia’s ultimate objective was to create conditions under which citizens could achieve dignity and independence rather than become permanently dependent on the state.
He quoted Busia as saying: “Our goal is to enable every man and woman in our country to live a life of dignity in freedom.”
For Dr Prempeh, that statement remains a powerful definition of humane centre-right governance.
Rural development as equal citizenship
Another major area of Busia’s governance vision highlighted by Dr Prempeh was rural development.
He said the Second Republic recognised that Ghana’s independence could not be considered complete if citizens in rural communities continued to lack basic services available in urban centres.
The Busia government therefore placed rural development at the centre of its development agenda, with attention to roads, potable water, healthcare, education, electricity and community facilities.
Dr Prempeh stressed that rural development was not regarded as charity to rural communities but as an issue of equal citizenship.
He noted that rural communities contributed significantly to the national economy through agriculture, cocoa, timber and other productive activities and therefore deserved equitable access to public infrastructure and services.
He cited the Rural Development Fund Act of 1970 as part of the legislative framework through which the government sought to mobilise resources for rural development.
The former Energy Minister also drew a connection between Busia’s rural electrification efforts and contemporary development challenges.
He observed that more than five decades after the Second Republic’s initiatives, Ghana was still grappling with the challenge of extending infrastructure and services to the last mile.
He said the cost of reaching remote communities remained a major challenge for governments.
Community participation
According to Dr Prempeh, another important lesson from the Busia era was the emphasis on cooperation between the central government, local authorities, traditional leaders and communities.
He said Busia’s government recognised that the state alone could not provide every development need and therefore encouraged community self-help as a complement to government investment.
He cautioned, however, that community participation should never be used as an excuse for government to abandon its responsibilities.
Rather, he said, it should allow citizens to become active participants in the development of their own communities.
He described this approach as particularly relevant to contemporary development planning, where citizens increasingly demand participation in decisions affecting their communities.
Chieftaincy and Ghanaian identity
Dr Prempeh further praised Busia’s understanding of Ghana’s traditional institutions and the role of chieftaincy in national development.
He said Busia’s academic background in social anthropology and his study of Ghanaian chieftaincy influenced his approach to governance.
Rather than treating traditional institutions as obstacles to modernisation, Busia recognised their continued importance in land administration, community mobilisation, mediation, cultural identity and social cohesion.
Dr Prempeh said the Chieftaincy Act of 1971 reflected an attempt to give traditional authority a recognised and regulated place within Ghana’s institutional framework.
He maintained that Ghana’s development did not require the country to abandon its cultural heritage.
According to him, national unity should instead be built around equal citizenship, constitutionalism and mutual respect while preserving cultural identities that contribute to the country’s collective strength.
Education as the architecture of opportunity
Education also occupied a central place in Dr Prempeh’s assessment of Busia’s development philosophy.
He said Busia’s own life demonstrated the transformative power of education, having risen from Wenchi to become an Oxford scholar, university professor and Prime Minister of Ghana.
Busia, he noted, viewed education as more than the acquisition of certificates.
It was intended to develop judgement, skills, character and civic responsibility.
Dr Prempeh cited Busia’s philosophy that education must transmit the heritage of the past, address the needs of the present and prepare society for the future.
He acknowledged that the Second Republic operated under severe fiscal constraints and faced increasing demand for educational opportunities.
It was against that background, he explained, that the government introduced the Students’ Loans Scheme Act of 1971 as a mechanism to support students pursuing higher education.
He said reasonable people could debate the design and financing of student support systems, but it would be inaccurate to portray Busia as opposed to education.
From Busia to Kufuor and Akufo-Addo
Dr Prempeh further connected Busia’s educational philosophy to subsequent education reforms implemented by governments associated with the Busia political tradition.
He pointed to the Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education (FCUBE) programme introduced under former President John Agyekum Kufuor as an important continuation of the commitment to expanding educational opportunity.
He also cited the Free Senior High School (Free SHS) policy introduced under former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo as another major intervention aimed at removing financial barriers to secondary education.
He argued that these later interventions could be understood within a broader tradition of expanding opportunity while seeking to improve the capacity of citizens to become productive and independent members of society.
The evolution, he suggested, demonstrates that the question Busia’s government confronted more than five decades ago — how to expand opportunity while maintaining economic sustainability — remains relevant to contemporary governments.
A living political inheritance
Dr Prempeh made it clear that his assessment of Busia was not that of a detached historian.
He described himself as a beneficiary and custodian of a political inheritance that stretches from Paa Grant, J.B. Danquah, Baffour Akoto, S.D. Dombo and K.A. Busia through John Agyekum Kufuor and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to the contemporary NPP tradition.
However, he cautioned against turning political history into hero worship.
He said loyalty to a political tradition should not prevent its members from acknowledging mistakes and shortcomings.
“Reverence that cannot survive honesty is sycophancy or hero-worship,” he stated, arguing that Busia himself, as a scholar, would have preferred an honest assessment of his administration to blind nostalgia.
Relevance to Ghana today
The central message of the lecture was that Busia’s political philosophy should not be confined to history books.
Dr Prempeh argued that the principles of constitutional restraint, individual dignity, social responsibility, rural development, community participation, educational opportunity and respect for indigenous institutions remain relevant to Ghana’s contemporary democratic journey.
He said the challenge for modern political leaders was to adapt these principles to current realities rather than merely celebrate them as historical achievements.
The Busia tradition, he explained, offered a model in which government was neither expected to control every aspect of citizens’ lives nor allowed to abandon its social responsibilities.
Instead, the state was expected to create the conditions for individuals, families, businesses and communities to prosper.
Busia’s enduring message
Dr Prempeh’s presentation ultimately portrayed the Second Republic not as a failed experiment cut short by a coup, but as an important chapter in Ghana’s continuing search for a sustainable democratic and developmental model.
He said Busia’s administration demonstrated that political freedom, economic responsibility and social welfare could coexist within a centre-right framework.
The enduring challenge, he noted, was to ensure that democracy translated into tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens.
More than five decades after Busia’s government left office, Dr Prempeh suggested that the question remains as relevant as ever: How can Ghana build a democratic society in which freedom is protected, responsibility is encouraged and every citizen has a genuine opportunity to live with dignity?
For him, the answer lies partly in revisiting — critically and honestly — the principles that guided Ghana’s Second Republic.
And that, he argued, is why the Busia democratic welfare society remains relevant today.
