By: Helena Kyeremanteng, Admin and Programme Assistant, ACEPA
Introduction
“Ghana’s youngest Parliament” has become a popular description of the 9th Parliament in media and public discourse, yet the data tell a different story. While young people aged 15–35 constitute 38.2% of Ghana’s population, only 8.2% of MPs fall within the 30–39 age bracket, and none are aged 30 or below, according to IPU Parline data. Although the 2024 elections brought approximately 120 first-time MPs into Parliament, representing about 43% of the House, this reflects legislative renewal rather than meaningful youth inclusion. The striking contrast between 8.2% and 38.2% raises important questions about whether Parliament truly reflects the demographic realities of Ghana’s youthful population.
However, the question remains: to what extent does this translate into genuine youth representation within the legislative arm of government? For a parliament to truly be described as “young,” it must include youthful representatives drawn from the national population, rather than merely an increase in new faces entering the legislature.
According to the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS), youth are defined as individuals aged 15 to 35 years, a group that currently constitutes 38.2% of the country’s population as at the 2021 Population and Housing Census. Yet, a closer examination of the composition of Ghana’s Parliament since the Fourth Republic reveals that youth representation has historically been limited.
Notable Commendations
It is commendable that Parliament has taken steps to address the gap in youth representation and participation. From the 6th Parliament to the current 9th Parliament, several initiatives have been introduced to institutionalize youth engagement within the legislative process. Notable among these are the Young Parliamentarians Forum, Youth Impact Parliament (YIP), and Youth Parliament 2.0, established under the Gulf of Guinea Northern Regions Social Cohesion (SOCO) Project.
These initiatives have increasingly provided avenues for amplifying youth voices and concerns within national discourse. They actively advocate for issues affecting young people in Ghana, including job creation and youth unemployment, housing and rent reforms, skills development and digital empowerment programmes, and educational reforms.
The Persisting Gap
While these institutional frameworks and initiatives have been established and formally recognized to promote youth representation and participation, their outcomes often fall short of the impact and developmental progress that many young people in Ghana aspire to see.
The first concern relates to the descriptive representation of youth, as defined by the Ghana Statistical Service (GSS). Although 65% of members of the 9th Parliament are reported to be under 45, data from IPU Parline indicate that only 8.2% fall within the 30–39 age bracket. This suggests that the proportion of representatives who truly fall within Ghana’s official youth category remains limited. Consequently, despite perceptions of the current Parliament as “youthful”, the data indicate that young people remain underrepresented within the legislative arm of government, challenging the notion that the 9th Parliament fully embodies youth inclusivity.
Another major obstacle to youth representation is the growing monetization of parliamentary politics. The high costs associated with party primaries and election campaigns, including filing fees, delegate mobilization, campaign materials, transportation, and constituency outreach, place electoral competition beyond the reach of many young people. This financial barrier disproportionately affects young and first-time candidates, limiting their ability to contest elections and reinforcing the dominance of wealthier, more established political actors in Parliament. This dynamic often positions young people within political structures as stand-ins or protégés of established political elites, rather than as independent actors capable of advancing policies that reflect their generation’s priorities. Hence, the independent voices needed to champion youth-focused reforms are often constrained by existing party hierarchies and political interests.
Furthermore, the limited autonomy of the few young representatives in Parliament can contribute to implementation gaps. While youth concerns may occasionally be acknowledged in policy discussions, they are not always translated into tangible outcomes. This creates a disconnect between policy formulation and real improvements in the lives of young people. In this context, youth inclusion risks becoming more of a consultative process rather than genuine co-governance.
Although several youth-focused initiatives and institutional platforms have been introduced and formally recognized, many lack the authority, autonomy, and dedicated budgetary support needed to operate effectively. While the Ministry of Youth Development & Empowerment is mandated to promote youth employment, entrepreneurship, leadership, and civic participation, persistent challenges in implementation, coordination, and resource allocation have limited its ability to translate policy commitments into meaningful opportunities for young people. These constraints are even more pronounced for young women, who face the intersecting barriers of age and gender underrepresentation. As a result, their voices and interests remain marginalized in decision-making processes, underscoring the need to strengthen both youth-focused institutions and the Ministry’s capacity to advance inclusive and responsive youth policies.
What needs to be done
To strengthen youth representation in Parliament, youth quotas should be considered alongside the implementation of the Affirmative Action Act. While critics argue that quotas may undermine merit and limit party autonomy, they can help address structural barriers such as high campaign costs, limited political networks, and entrenched party hierarchies that often disadvantage young aspirants. Properly designed quotas would create a more equitable pathway for qualified young leaders to participate in governance.
Another step toward improving youth representation is reducing the financial and structural barriers that limit young people’s participation in electoral politics. The rising costs of party primaries and election campaigns often place parliamentary contests beyond the reach of many young aspirants. Introducing reduced filing fees, incentives for parties to nominate youth candidates, and spending caps during primaries could help level the political playing field and foster a more inclusive Parliament.
Additionally, Parliament should establish a dedicated Youth Caucus, distinct from the Young Parliamentarians Forum (YPF). Although existing parliamentary structures address youth issues, a formal caucus would provide a stronger cross-party platform to champion youth-focused legislation, monitor commitments, and advance youth representation. By institutionalizing youth advocacy within Parliament, the caucus would help ensure that young people’s voices and interests are meaningfully reflected in legislative decision-making.
Conclusion
The current composition of Ghana’s Parliament reflects a system that leans more toward gerontocratic representation than toward the demographic reality of a country where young people constitute a significant portion of the population. While it may appear that youth are well represented, available data suggest otherwise.
This stark demographic imbalance leaves Ghana lagging behind other African nations. While the 9th Parliament records no MPs aged 30 or below, Rwanda has 3.8% of MPs aged 30 and under and constitutionally reserves seats for young people, and Ethiopia leads the continent with 51.2% of legislators aged 40 and below. These examples demonstrate how deliberate institutional reforms can translate youth populations into meaningful political representation.
Socio-economic indicators further reinforce this imbalance, revealing that young people remain largely underrepresented in decision-making spaces. Persistent underrepresentation and limited inclusion risk fostering frustration and disengagement among the youth. Recent global experiences serve as cautionary examples: the widespread protests witnessed in Kenya, as well as the 2025 Gen Z uprising in Nepal and Madagascar, demonstrate how sustained exclusion from decision-making can trigger significant public discontent among young populations.
Ghana’s Parliament must therefore take proactive steps to avoid similar tensions by creating inclusive systems that genuinely empower young people. What young people seek are not symbolic gestures but institutional structures that meaningfully bring them into decision-making processes and address the long-standing gap in representation and participation.
This is a call that policymakers, political actors and the legislative arm of government cannot afford to ignore. Strengthening youth representation is not only a matter of fairness but also essential for building a responsive, stable, and future-oriented democratic governance system in Ghana.