2024 defeat published governance and candidate screw ups — Bryan Acheampong – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

The 2024 Ghanaian general election resulted in a significant shift in the country’s political landscape, with the New Patriotic Party (NPP) conceding defeat to the National Democratic Congress (NDC). Following this electoral outcome, internal analysis and public discourse have focused on identifying the root causes of the loss. Dr. Bryan Acheampong, a prominent member of the NPP and the Member of Parliament for Abetifi, has offered a candid assessment of the party’s performance. His analysis points to a dual crisis: a fundamental “governance challenge” and a distinct “candidate challenge.” This article provides a comprehensive analysis of Dr. Acheampong’s insights, exploring the data behind the parliamentary versus presidential vote splits, the historical context of these results, and the practical implications for the NPP’s future strategy.

Key Points

Background

The 2024 general elections in Ghana were highly anticipated, serving as a test for the incumbent New Patriotic Party (NPP). The political climate was characterized by economic challenges, including inflation and debt management, which dominated the campaign trail. The NPP presented Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia as its flagbearer, while the NDC rallied behind former President John Dramani Mahama.

Throughout the campaign, the focus was largely on national issues, party manifestos, and the track record of the sitting government. However, the results on December 7, 2024, revealed a disconnect that was not fully anticipated by political analysts. While the NPP had historically maintained a strong base in certain regions, the 2024 election showed cracks in this foundation.

Dr. Bryan Acheampong, a business mogul turned politician, has been a vocal member of the NPP. As the MP for Abetifi, he has a vested interest in the party’s performance at both the local and national levels. His post-election commentary is part of a broader internal reckoning within the NPP, as party stalwarts seek to understand why the electorate shifted away from the party’s presidential ticket despite the success of many parliamentary candidates.

Analysis: The Governance vs. Candidate Challenge

Dr. Acheampong’s diagnosis of the 2024 defeat is distinct in its separation of the party’s legislative and executive performances. He argues that the election results exposed “deeper weaknesses” that went beyond standard campaign rhetoric. By categorizing the defeat into two specific challenges, he provides a framework for understanding the NPP’s electoral arithmetic.

The Governance Challenge

The “governance challenge” refers to the incumbent party’s record in office. In political science, this is often referred to as a referendum on the government’s performance. Dr. Acheampong suggests that the dissatisfaction with the ruling government did not uniformly affect every level of the ballot. Instead, voters made a distinction between the national executive leadership and their local representatives.

This phenomenon indicates that while the electorate may have been unhappy with national policy outcomes—likely related to economic management—they still saw value in retaining specific NPP Members of Parliament. The “governance challenge” was therefore not a total rejection of the party’s legislative wing, but a punitive measure against the executive branch for perceived mismanagement.

The Candidate Challenge

Separate from the governance issue, Dr. Acheampong points to a “candidate challenge.” This suggests that the specific individual leading the NPP’s ticket, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia, may have faced personal headwinds that the party’s parliamentary candidates did not. This could relate to voter appeal, campaign messaging, or public perception of the candidate’s ability to lead.

The implication of a “candidate challenge” is profound. It suggests that even if the governance record had been stronger, the specific choice of flagbearer might have struggled to mobilize the necessary votes to win the presidency. This distinction is crucial for the NPP as it determines whether the loss was inevitable due to national mood or specific to the 2024 flagbearer’s campaign strategy.

Statistical Evidence: The Parliamentary Outperformance

The most compelling evidence provided by Dr. Acheampong is statistical. He highlights a trend where NPP parliamentary candidates consistently outperformed the presidential candidate in the same constituencies. This split-ticket voting behavior is a significant indicator of voter intent.

Case Study: Abetifi Constituency

Dr. Acheampong used his own constituency, Abetifi, as a primary example. As the incumbent MP, he secured a victory that defied the overall trend of the presidential vote in his area. “In my case, I did better than my presidential candidate,” he stated. This local success suggests that personal popularity and constituency-level performance can insulate a candidate from national anti-incumbency sentiments.

Case Study: Okaikwei South Constituency

To further illustrate the point, Dr. Acheampong referenced the Okaikwei South constituency. Here, the NPP parliamentary candidate, Dakoa Newman, lost her seat, but the margin of defeat was significantly narrower than that of the presidential candidate. Newman lost by approximately 5,000 votes, whereas the presidential candidate lost the same constituency by roughly 11,000 votes.

This data point is critical: it shows that roughly 6,000 voters in Okaikwei South split their tickets, voting against the NPP presidential candidate while voting for (or at least more favorably toward) the NPP parliamentary candidate.

National Aggregation

When these individual constituency results are aggregated nationally, the disparity becomes stark. Dr. Acheampong noted that if you sum the parliamentary results, the NPP’s legislative candidates beat the presidential candidate by almost 350,000 votes. He emphasized that “this has never happened in the country before.”

This statistical anomaly highlights a massive split between the party’s legislative and executive brand appeal. It implies that the NPP retains a substantial base of support that is willing to vote for the party in parliament but refused to vote for the party in the presidency.

Historical Context of Ghanaian Elections

To understand the gravity of the 2024 results, one must look at the history of voting patterns in Ghana. Traditionally, Ghanaian elections exhibit a high correlation between presidential and parliamentary votes. Voters tend to align their choices to ensure a stable government—either voting for a unified ticket or rejecting the incumbent party entirely across the board.

The 2024 election breaks this historical pattern. The 350,000-vote gap mentioned by Dr. Acheampong represents a significant deviation from the norm. It suggests a sophisticated electorate that is capable of nuanced decision-making, distinguishing between the “man” and the “party” or the “national agenda” and the “local agenda.”

For the NDC, the victory of John Dramani Mahama returned them to power, but the resilience of NPP MPs suggests that the opposition party cannot rest easy. The electorate has signaled that while they wanted a change at the top, they are not entirely sold on a total legislative overhaul in favor of the NDC.

Practical Advice

Based on Dr. Acheampong’s analysis, the NPP faces a critical juncture in its post-2024 strategy. The following practical steps are derived from the identified challenges:

1. Re-evaluating Flagbearer Selection

The “candidate challenge” implies that the NPP must rigorously assess the criteria for selecting future flagbearers. It is not enough to have a candidate with strong technical qualifications or internal party support; the candidate must possess broad electoral appeal capable of withstanding national sentiment. The party may need to prioritize charismatic leadership that can bridge the gap between the party’s intellectual wing and the grassroots electorate.

2. Addressing Governance Deficits

The “governance challenge” requires the NPP to conduct a thorough audit of its time in office (2017-2024). They must identify specific policy failures or communication lapses that led to the voter backlash. This involves more than just acknowledging economic hardship; it requires formulating a narrative that explains what went wrong and how the party intends to fix it, ensuring that future governance is insulated from the specific criticisms leveled in 2024.

3. Leveraging Parliamentary Strength

With parliamentary candidates outperforming the presidential ticket by a wide margin, the NPP has a strong base of MPs to rely on. The party should empower these MPs to become the face of the opposition. Since these MPs have proven their ability to win local trust, they can serve as the bridge to rebuild the national brand. The party should focus on constituency-level development projects and advocacy led by these successful MPs.

4. Understanding the Split-Ticket Voter

The NPP must study the 350,000 voters who chose an NPP MP but not an NPP President. Who are they? What are their grievances? Understanding this demographic is key to winning them back. The party needs to craft a message that appeals to these specific voters—those who are open to the NPP’s legislative agenda but repelled by its executive leadership or national performance.

FAQ

Conclusion

Dr. Bryan Acheampong’s assessment of the 2024 election results provides a critical roadmap for the New Patriotic Party’s recovery. By identifying a distinct split between the party’s legislative and executive performance, he highlights that the NPP is not without hope, but is in need of strategic introspection. The “governance challenge” and “candidate challenge” are not merely political buzzwords; they are data-driven diagnoses supported by a historical anomaly in Ghanaian voting patterns. For the NPP to return to power in future elections, it must address the grievances that led to the rejection of its presidential ticket while capitalizing on the enduring trust placed in its parliamentary candidates. The path forward lies in bridging the gap between these two electoral realities.