By Anoma Ebo
In every thriving democracy, from Accra to Atlanta, the role of a Vice President is not ornamental, it is foundational. The Vice President is not a bystander to leadership but a steward of continuity, a partner in governance, and often, the bridge between vision and execution. So when a community organization, built on the very ideals of service, unity, and democratic succession, entertains the notion of disqualifying its sitting Vice President from seeking the presidency, we must pause and ask: what exactly are we punishing?
Are we penalizing loyalty? Are we discrediting competence? Or are we, perhaps, allowing factionalism to override fairness?
Let us be clear: disqualifying a Vice President who has faithfully served, often stepping in to perform presidential duties in times of absence is not only unjust, it is institutionally reckless.
The Vice President in question is Dr. Eunice Cromwell, a leader whose service has been marked by dignity, consistency, and a deep commitment to the organization’s mission. She has not only supported the President but has often acted in his stead, ensuring continuity and stability. To now suggest that she is unqualified to run for the presidency is to deny the very leadership she has already demonstrated.
Across the globe, the Vice Presidency is designed as a natural springboard to the presidency. In the United States, 15 Vice Presidents have gone on to become President. In Ghana, Vice Presidents are constitutionally positioned to assume the highest office in the land. Why? Because they are elected on the same ticket, entrusted with the same vision, and expected to lead when called upon.
To suggest that Dr. Cromwell, who has already proven her capacity to lead, is somehow unfit to hold the office permanently is not only contradictory, it is insulting. It undermines the very principles of democratic succession and institutional memory.
Let us examine the facts. Dr. Cromwell and the current executive members are not bound by any constitutional clause that precludes them from seeking higher office. There are no published guidelines, no ratified bylaws, no legitimate framework that bars their candidacy. In the absence of such rules, any attempt to disqualify her becomes arbitrary, subjective, and dangerously political. It sets a precedent where service becomes a liability, and where those who step up in moments of need are later told to step aside when it matters most.
This is not governance. This is gatekeeping.
Disqualifying a Vice President who has served with distinction sends a chilling message to future leaders: that loyalty will be punished, that stepping up will be used against you, and that institutional memory counts for nothing. It fractures trust. It discourages capable individuals from offering themselves for service. And it creates a vacuum of leadership that no constitution can fill.
Worse still, it opens the door to factional manipulation, where rules are invented to suit agendas, and where elections become coronations for the favored few.
If we are to build a community organization that reflects the best of our values, transparency, meritocracy, and unity, then we must reject this dangerous attempt to disqualify Dr. Cromwell on baseless grounds.
Let the Vice President, who has already proven capable of leading in the President’s absence, be given the dignity to contest in the President’s presence.
Anything less is not just a disservice to the candidate, it is a disservice to the community.
“When the drumbeat changes, the dancer must adjust his steps.” — African proverb
The rhythm of our times calls for fairness, not factionalism . For leadership that is earned, not orchestrated.
Let us not break the very instruments of democracy in our attempt to play its tune.
