Domestic Polarization in Ghana and its Implications for the 2024 General Elections

As Ghana approaches its 2024 general elections, the nation finds itself at a crossroads, with domestic polarization posing significant challenges to its democratic fabric. Despite being hailed as a model of stability in West Africa, the country’s political landscape has become increasingly divided along partisan, ethnic, and socio-economic lines. The intense rivalry between the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has deepened political allegiances, while growing public discontent over economic hardships and governance concerns further amplifies these divisions. This heightened polarization threatens to undermine the peaceful electoral transitions that have been a hallmark of Ghana's democracy. The upcoming elections, therefore, not only serve as a test of the country's democratic resilience but also raise critical questions about how these internal divisions could influence political outcomes, national cohesion, and the long-term stability of the country.

The 2024 general elections will take place in a politically charged environment where key issues such as economic management, unemployment, corruption, and regional inequalities are at the forefront of public discourse. Additionally, the leadership transition within the ruling NPP, following President Nana Akufo-Addo's completion of two terms, introduces a new level of uncertainty. Meanwhile, the NDC, led by former President John Dramani Mahama, aims to reclaim power by capitalizing on widespread frustrations with the current administration's handling of the economy. Compounding these political dynamics is the increasing influence of social media and youth-driven movements, which have become vocal in expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo. Movements like #FixTheCountry and the New Force, which advocate for systemic reforms, are emblematic of a broader shift in political engagement that challenges the dominance of the two main parties. As these factors converge, the potential for polarization to shape not only electoral outcomes but also the post-election environment becomes more pronounced. This makes the 2024 elections a crucial moment for Ghana, as it confronts the risk of deepening divides and potential threats to its hard-earned democratic stability.

Domestic polarization refers to the deepening divide between political, social, and ethnic groups within a country (Xiong & Jiang, 2022). In Ghana, the two main political parties – the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) – have become symbols of this divide. The rivalry between the NPP and NDC has traditionally dominated Ghanaian politics, but in recent years, this competition has intensified, exacerbating divisions in society. This polarization extends beyond politics, seeping into everyday life, with the media, social discourse, and even economic opportunities often perceived through a partisan lens. As political divisions deepen, questions arise about the long-term impact on national unity, governance, and the ability of the country's institutions to manage these growing tensions. Political polarization, characterized by the sharp division of opinions along partisan lines, has been a defining feature of Ghana's political landscape for decades. Though the country has earned global recognition for its peaceful democratic transitions and relatively stable governance, underlying tensions between political groups have persisted, often reflecting deeper social, ethnic, and regional divisions (Governance and Politics in Ghana, 2021). This short write-up examines the historical evolution of political polarization in Ghana, tracing its roots from the colonial period through independence, military regimes, and the post-1992 multi-party democracy, highlighting key moments and dynamics that have shaped its development. Understanding the roots and consequences of this polarization is crucial to addressing its implications for Ghana’s future stability.

The Colonial Legacy and Early Polarization in Ghanaian Politics

Political polarization in Ghana has its roots in the colonial era when the British colonial administration ruled the Gold Coast (as Ghana was known before independence). The colonial governance system, which emphasized indirect rule, fostered divisions among the local population, particularly between the educated elite in urban areas and traditional authorities in rural regions. The educated elite, concentrated in the coastal regions, were more exposed to Western education and ideas of nationalism, while the rural and northern regions were less developed and more dependent on traditional governance structures. It is an established fact in the political history of Ghana that even “in response to the labour shortage crisis facing the British mining companies and coca plantations, the British colonial government developed a policy that designated the northern part of Gold Coast as a labour reserve” (Amoah & Mensah, 2024: 4).

These early divisions became more pronounced as nationalist movements gained momentum in the 1940s and 1950s. The United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), formed in 1947, represented the interests of the educated elite and middle class, advocating for gradual reforms and greater self-governance (Rathbone, 1968; Smith, 1957). In contrast, Kwame Nkrumah, a charismatic and result-oriented leader who had initially been a member of the UGCC, broke away to form the Convention People’s Party (CPP) in 1949. The CPP demanded immediate independence and mass mobilization, focusing on the working class, youth, and rural poor, as opposed to the more conservative approach of the UGCC (Ryan, 1970). This ideological split between the UGCC and the CPP set the stage for political polarization in the country's nascent political system. This rivalry continued after Ghana’s independence in 1957.

Post-Independence Politics and Polarization (1957-1966)

Ghana gained independence from British colonial rule in 1957, with Kwame Nkrumah becoming the country's first prime minister and later president. Nkrumah’s government, under the CPP, pursued socialist policies and aimed to rapidly industrialize the country. However, his style of governance soon led to increasing political polarization. His push for a one-party state, along with crackdowns on opposition groups, widened the divide between supporters of the CPP and other factions (Ryan, 1970). Nkrumah’s policies alienated sections of the population, particularly the opposition United Party (UP), which was an amalgamation of regional and ethnic-based groups that felt marginalized by Nkrumah’s authoritarian approach and centralization of power. Many Nkrumahists would argue that Nkrumah’s isolationist policies were dictated by exigencies of the time (Matteo, 2019). I will resist the temptation to delve into that unending debate.

Ethnic and regional tensions also played a significant role during this period. The Ashanti and northern regions, in particular, became strongholds of the opposition to Nkrumah’s government. Many Ashantis, led by the National Liberation Movement (NLM), which later merged into the UP, saw Nkrumah’s centralization of power as a threat to their traditional autonomy and economic interests (Chazan, 1982). It is worth highlighting that the NLM, which was formed in 1954, was set up by disaffected Ashanti members of the Convention People’s Party. This tension between the CPP’s centralist agenda and the regionalist tendencies of the opposition further polarized the political landscape. Nkrumah’s eventual declaration of a one-party state in 1964 and his suppression of political dissent solidified these divisions, contributing to his eventual overthrow in a military coup in 1966.

Political Polarization under Military Rule (1966-1981)

Following Nkrumah’s ouster in 1966, Ghana experienced a series of military regimes that alternated with brief periods of civilian rule. The first military government, the National Liberation Council (NLC), was initially supported by opposition groups, particularly those that had opposed Nkrumah’s ‘authoritarianism’ (Rathbone, 2016). However, the military regime soon faced its own legitimacy crisis, as economic hardships and political instability persisted. Political polarization during this period was primarily shaped by the contest between civilian politicians seeking a return to democracy and military leaders who justified their hold on power by pointing to the country’s political and economic problems. After the brief civilian rule of the Progress Party (PP) under Prime Minister Kofi Busia (1969-1972), another coup, led by Colonel Ignatius Kutu Acheampong, returned the military to power. Acheampong’s regime (1972-1978) was marked by economic mismanagement and corruption, further polarizing the country. While some supported Acheampong’s policies, particularly his “Operation Feed Yourself” campaign aimed at boosting agricultural production, others viewed his government as illegitimate and repressive (Hettne, 1980).

The late 1970s saw the rise of a more radical opposition to military rule, culminating in the emergence of Jerry John Rawlings, an air force officer who led two coups in 1979 and 1981. Rawlings’ interventions were initially seen as popular uprisings against corruption and economic decay, but they also deepened political polarization, as his Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) ruled with a heavy hand, cracking down on perceived enemies of the revolution (Hansen & Collins, 1980).

The Fourth Republic and the NPP-NDC Rivalry (1992-Present)

The return to multi-party democracy in 1992, with the establishment of the Fourth Republic, marked a new chapter in Ghana’s political history. Jerry John Rawlings, who had transitioned from military ruler to democratically elected president under the newly formed National Democratic Congress (NDC), dominated the political scene in the 1990s. The polarization between the NDC and its main rival, the New Patriotic Party (NPP), would define the political landscape for the next three decades.

The NDC, with roots in Rawlings’ PNDC government, attracted support from various regions, particularly the Volta Region, while the NPP, formed out of the traditions of the UP and led by eminent figures such as professor Albert Adu Boahen, President John Kofi Agyekum Kufuor, and the current President of Ghana, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, drew much of its support from the Akan-speaking regions, especially the Ashanti Region (Ayee, 2008). This regional and ethnic alignment of political support exacerbated divisions, with both parties often accused of exploiting ethnic identities for political gain.

The closely contested elections of 2000, which saw the NPP’s J.A. Kufuor defeat the NDC’s John Atta Mills, and the peaceful transfer of power were hailed as a victory for democracy. However, political polarization remained high, as each party sought to consolidate its base in its strongholds while attempting to expand into regions dominated by the rival party. This polarization has continued through subsequent election cycles, particularly in the highly contentious elections of 2008, 2012, and 2020, where accusations of electoral fraud, legal challenges, and heightened political rhetoric intensified divisions.

Factors Contributing to Polarization in Contemporary Ghana

Several factors (both perennial and emerging) have contributed to the persistence of political polarization in the current democratic dispensation in Ghana. The scope of this platform would not allow for an elaborate discussion of the factors. Therefore, a highlight of the striking points will suffice.

1. Ethnic and Regional Cleavages: The regional and ethnic basis of political party support has deepened polarization, as the NDC and NPP are often seen as representing different regional and ethnic interests.

2. Economic Disparities: Economic inequalities between different regions of the country have fueled political discontent, with accusations that ruling parties favor their strongholds in the allocation of development projects. In other words, some regions, especially those aligned with the ruling party, tend to benefit more from development projects, creating perceptions of favoritism and marginalization. Concomitantly, in the lead-up to the 2024 elections, economic inequality has become a focal point of political discourse, further accentuating existing divides.

3. Media Partisanship: The media landscape in Ghana, including traditional outlets and social media, has played a significant role in shaping political opinions. However, the proliferation of partisan media outlets, especially radio and television stations aligned with either the NPP or NDC, has further entrenched political polarization by amplifying party narratives and deepening divides. This environment often leads to the entrenchment of political views, making it difficult for the public to engage in constructive debates or consider opposing perspectives.

4. Social Media and Youth Movements: In recent years, social media platforms have become powerful tools for political mobilization, but they have also contributed to the spread of misinformation, propaganda, and divisive rhetoric, fueling political tensions.

The Political Climate Ahead of the 2024 Elections

The 2024 general elections in Ghana are expected to be one of the most closely contested in the country’s history. This election will be significant for several reasons. First, the NPP, led by President Nana Akufo-Addo, will be seeking to maintain power after serving constitutionally mandated two consecutive terms. However, under Ghana’s constitution, President Akufo-Addo is ineligible to run for a third term, and the NPP will need to rally around a new candidate, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia (DMB). The NDC, on the other hand, fielded former President John Dramani Mahama, who has been the NPP’s main rival for the past two election cycles. This backdrop of intense political rivalry, combined with domestic polarization, creates a precarious environment for the 2024 elections. Several factors could influence the political landscape in the two months leading up to the election:

1. Leadership Transition in the NPP: The internal dynamics of the ruling NPP will be critical to watch as the party navigates the transition from Akufo-Addo’s leadership to the new candidate, DMB. A fractious internal political contest (that gave birth to a new political movement led by Alan John Kyerematen) or unresolved intra-party conflicts could weaken the party’s chances and deepen internal divisions, making it more difficult to unify supporters ahead of the election. So far, everything looks perfect in the campaign process for the ruling party. However, the real test of character remains to be seen if the NPP loses the 2024 elections.

2. Economic Performance: Ghana has faced economic challenges, including inflation, debt burdens, and joblessness, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and global economic uncertainties. The NPP government’s handling of these economic difficulties have become a major issue in the campaign, and opposition parties, especially the NDC, are framing the election as a referendum on the government’s economic management. Economic grievances are heightening polarization as voters rally around their preferred parties based on perceived economic performance.

3. Youth and Social Movements: Ghana has a youthful population, with a significant portion of voters under the age of 35. Young people are increasingly engaged in politics, often through social movements or on social media platforms, and many express frustrations with the existing political order. Movements like #FixTheCountry, which have criticized government corruption and called for structural reforms, could play an important role in shaping voter sentiment. These social movements represent a new layer of polarization, as they challenge both the NPP and NDC, potentially fragmenting the traditional two-party system.

4. Electoral Commission and Electoral Integrity: Trust in the electoral process is crucial for any democracy. The credibility of the Electoral Commission (EC) has been a contentious issue, particularly after the 2020 elections, when the NDC contested the results. There is currently a needless impasse between the EC and the NDC regarding what the NDC described as monumental errors in the electoral roll for December’s nationwide poll. This stalemate has culminated in a nationwide protest by supporters of the NDC to demand an independent forensic audit of the country’s voter register. The election authority has admitted to the claims of the NDC that there are errors in the register and indicated that those errors have been corrected. What is intriguing in this whole brouhaha is the fact that the ruling NPP has been supporting every move of the independent electoral commission, deepening the perception among a section of Ghanaians that the EC is in bed with the NPP to rig the 2024 elections in favour of DMB, the presidential candidate for the NPP. This scenario is a repeat of the events leading up to the 2016 general elections, when the then opposition NPP accused the EC of registering non-Ghanaians in a bid to favour the then ruling NDC. The nagging question is: What do these two political parties know about the Electoral Commission that the rest of Ghanaians do not know about? Ensuring a transparent and impartial electoral process will be vital to maintaining peace during and after the 2024 elections. Any perception of bias or manipulation could lead to political unrest and deepen polarization.

Implications of Polarization for the 2024 Elections

The growing domestic polarization in Ghana has several implications for the 2024 elections:

1. Increased Political Tensions: The heightened partisan rivalry, compounded by economic challenges and the youth movement, is likely to create a charged political atmosphere. The risk of political violence, especially in areas where interparty tensions are high, cannot be ruled out. Political actors must work to prevent inflammatory rhetoric or actions that could incite violence.

2. Challenges to National Unity: The regional and ethnic dimensions of Ghanaian politics mean that polarization could exacerbate existing fault lines, threatening national unity. In the past, ethnic tensions have been a sensitive issue, and political parties must be careful to avoid exploiting these divisions for electoral gain.

3. Possibility of Voter Apathy: If the polarization reaches extreme levels, there is a risk of voter apathy, particularly among those who feel disillusioned with the two dominant political parties. Social movements critical of the political establishment could siphon off support from the NPP and NDC, potentially leading to lower voter turnout or the emergence of third-party candidates.

4. Potential for Democratic Backsliding: Although Ghana’s democracy has remained resilient, increased polarization could challenge the country’s democratic institutions. If the election is marred by violence, disputed results, or perceptions of electoral fraud, this could undermine trust in democratic processes and institutions, leading to potential democratic backsliding.

Conclusion
Political polarization has been a persistent feature of Ghana’s political landscape, shaped by historical, ethnic, and socio-economic factors. From the early divisions between Nkrumah’s CPP and opposition forces through periods of military rule to the entrenched rivalry between the NPP and NDC, political polarization has defined much of the country’s political history. As Ghana approaches its 2024 general elections, the country’s domestic polarization poses a significant challenge to the stability of its democratic process. The intense rivalry between the NPP and NDC, along with economic grievances, ethnic divisions, and growing youth movements, is likely to shape the election’s outcome. Ensuring a peaceful, transparent, and credible election will require careful management of these divisions by political leaders, the Electoral Commission, and civil society actors. As Ghana moves forward, addressing these deep-seated divisions will be crucial for ensuring the continued stability and resilience of its democracy. The country’s ability to navigate this polarization will be crucial to maintaining its reputation as a beacon of democracy in Africa.

References
Chazan Naomi (1982). Ethnicity and Politics in Ghana. Political Science Quarterly, 97(3), pp. 461–485.

Hansen Emmanuel and Paul Collins (1980). “The Army, the State, and the “Rawlings Revolution” in Ghana.” African Affairs, 79(314), pp. 3–23.

Hettne Björn (1980). Soldiers and Politics: The Case of Ghana. Journal of Peace Research, 17(2), pp. 173–193.

John Oti Amoah, and Justice Mensah (2024). “Modern slavery and social protection in Northern Ghana: A decolonised perspective,” Journal of Economic Criminology, Volume 3, pp. 1-7.

Joseph Ayee (2008). The evolution of the New Patriotic Party in Ghana, South African Journal of International Affairs, 15(2), pp. 185-214.

Matteo Grilli (2019). “A historiographical overview of Nkrumah’s ideology and foreign policy.” Southern Journal for Contemporary History, 44(2), pp. 29–54.

Rathbone, R. (1968). The Government of the Gold Coast after the Second World War. African Affairs, 67(268), pp. 209–218.

Rathbone, R. (2016). The Convention People’s Party (CPP) in Ghana, Late 1950s to the 1970s: Mobilisation for Transformation. In: Lüdtke, A. (eds) Everyday Life in Mass Dictatorship. Mass Dictatorship in the Twentieth Century. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Ryan, S. (1970). The Theory and Practice of African One Partyism: The CPP Re-Examined. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 4(2), pp. 145–172.

Smith, S. A. D. (1957), THE INDEPENDENCE OF GHANA. The Modern Law Review, (20), pp. 347-363.

UNDP (December 2021). “Governance and Politics in Ghana: Policy Brief.” [Online], available at: file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/Governance-and-Political-Analysis-in-Ghana---Policy-Brief_UNDP-Ghana.pdf.

Xiaohan Xiong and Penghao Jiang (2022). “The Relationship between Country Characteristics and Ideological Polarization,” International Journal of Social Science and Humanity vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 243-253.