The writer
On March 3, 2026, as voters queued in the Ayawaso East by-election, a video published by Ghana Web and shared on its Facebook wall captured a moment that should unsettle us all.
In the clip, an elderly man, speaking candidly to a Ghana Web reporter, declared that he would not vote unless he received something in return.
His frustration was not subtle.
“I joined NDC since 1979. And my friend let me tell you, I’ve not got anything. Even T-Shirts sometimes I have to struggle. That Assemblyman over there, Willie, he usually sometimes gives me T-Shirts. People are enjoying, I am not enjoying.
Every day I will join the line, go and vote, join the line go and vote, but I said this term, this particularly day as I am talking to you I will never vote… so I said today, even if it is GH¢10, I will appreciate it, but other than that, my friend, I will never vote for anybody, I will keep my card and nobody will have something to tell me, no!..”
The statement is shocking. But it is also diagnostic. It would be convenient to frame this episode as yet another example of “vote buying.” But what the Ayawaso East video exposes is something more troubling: the steady normalisation of vote selling.
The difference matters. Vote buying places the moral burden on politicians. Vote selling reflects a deeper shift in democratic culture, one where citizens themselves begin to treat the ballot as a tradable asset.
The man in the Ghana Web video is not merely demanding GH¢10. He is articulating a broken social contract. He has voted since 1979, he says, yet he feels excluded from the dividends of governance. “People are enjoying, I am not enjoying.” That is not the language of corruption; it is the language of perceived marginalisation.
The structural dimension of this problem has long been flagged by the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana). In its 2024–2026 advocacy around political finance reform, CDD-Ghana has emphasised that the high cost of politics and weak regulation of campaign financing create incentives for transactional mobilisation.
When candidates must raise and spend large sums to remain competitive, inducements become tools of strategy rather than aberrations. Over time, voters internalise the logic: if politics is expensive, then political support must be monetisable. Thus, vote buying mutates into vote selling.
From a communication and public policy perspective, this shift is profound. For decades, civic education has insisted that “your vote is your voice.” But where lived experience contradicts that promise, where public services remain uneven, youth unemployment persists, and local development feels stagnant, the symbolic power of that message weakens.
A small amount of money, even GH¢10, becomes not merely an inducement but a tangible acknowledgment in an otherwise intangible democratic relationship.
The viral circulation of the Ayawaso East video amplifies this risk. Social media does not just report behaviour; it shapes norms. When one voter publicly prices his ballot, others observe that pricing as possible, perhaps even acceptable. Silence or weak institutional response further reinforces the perception that transactional politics is tolerated.
This is where Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) must become central to electoral integrity efforts. Ghana’s responses to vote buying are often episodic, heightened scrutiny during election cycles, diminished attention afterward.
But inducement politics is not seasonal; it is systemic. A MEL-informed approach would begin by rigorously tracking both behaviour and perception. Afrobarometer provides a national baseline on citizens’ attitudes toward inducements. That data should be complemented by constituency-level monitoring of reported inducement incidents, patterns of turnout, and shifts in public trust.
Interventions, whether civic campaigns, political finance reforms, or enforcement actions must then be evaluated for effectiveness. Which messages reduce tolerance for vote selling? Which enforcement mechanisms deter repeat behaviour? Where does cynicism remain highest? Without evidence-driven adaptation, we risk recycling rhetoric without impact.
Equally important is closing the accountability feedback loop. When allegations of inducement circulate widely, but investigations remain opaque, silence communicates impunity. And impunity fuels normalisation.
The Ayawaso East by-election may soon fade from headlines. But the deeper question raised by that elderly voter will linger: What has my vote delivered?
If democracy is experienced as ritual without reward, transactional expectations will grow. But if governance becomes visibly responsive, if institutions demonstrate fairness and reforms address the cost of politics, the social norm can shift back toward principle.
According to the Afrobarometer Round 10 Ghana Summary of Results (2024), a majority of Ghanaians say that offers of money, gifts, or favors from political parties would not influence their vote.
That finding is significant. It tells us that most Ghanaians still believe money should not determine electoral choice. That belief is our democratic anchor. The task ahead is to align institutions, communication strategies, and political finance reforms with that majority norm.
If we get used to selling votes cheaply, we end up paying for it in bad leadership and broken systems, and that costs us far more in the long run.
By Daniel Kwame Ampofo Adjei, PhD., PMP
