‘Son of the soil politics’ has played, and continues to play, a crucial role in the Ghanaian political landscape since independence. It is a political strategy by which political parties leverage on the indigenous identity, cultural heritage, or the historical ties to their regions or lands of origin for electoral advantage. In the lead-up to independence and during the early post-independence period, it was negatively exploited as a political strategy to the extent that it threatened the stability of the republic, risking civil unrest and the collapse of the country. In response to this volatility, the formation of political parties along ethnic, religious and regional lines was legally prohibited in both the 1960 and subsequently the 1992 constitutions. However, since the 4th Republic, an informal consensus has emerged, leading to a de-facto integration of ‘son of the soil politics’ into the nation’s body politic.

Although ‘son of the soil politics’ is used as one of the menus of electoral campaign strategies by politicians, in return, it is expected that when such politicians get the nod to power, they will promote and implement policies that favor their communities in areas such as resource distribution, political representation, and social services. To curb the negative consequences of unfair distribution of resources and group exclusion, that often result from it, political parties have sought to leverage its positive aspects for nation-building. Thus seeking to transform the potentially-divisive curse of ‘son of the soil politics’ into a blessing - a tool for social cohesion through inclusive representation and development. For instance, the practice of balancing presidential and vice-presidential candidate tickets across regions or religious affiliations highlights these efforts in our politics. Indeed, the selection of JDM and DMB as running mates and currently, flag bearers of their respective parties exemplify this arrangement. The selections of their running mates largely reflect this.

Incidentally, whether out of coincidence or divine providence, these two candidates are both ‘sons of soil’ from the former Northern Region (NR) which gave birth to their respective new regions, JDM in Savanah region and DMB in the NER. As a result, the framing of ‘son of soil politics’ among constituents has challenged the conventional wisdom of this tactic but also exposed its weaknesses. For instance, in their desperate quest for victory in the 2024 elections, the NPP wing in the NER and their party communicators are promoting DMB as a ‘son of the soil’ project. This narrative seems to be encouraging the NER to ‘put all its eggs in one basket’ by rallying around DMB in the belief that his election as president will facilitate development and representation in the region.

But is it a given that having a ‘son of the soil’ at the helm of affairs as president will automatically drive development and increase representation of people of the soil? No! In the political history of Ghana, the results of this experiment are ambivalent as having a ‘son of the soil’ in power does not necessarily guarantee progress or representation in the government of the winning political party. Indeed, it could potentially have detrimental effects on the region's development.  

Before I explain why DMB projection as a ‘son of the soil’ candidate in the NER is problematic, let me issue two important disclaimers here: First, in principle, I have no issue with political parties pursuing a ‘100% win’ campaign narratives in regions they consider strongholds. Second, I am not against voters supporting DMB and the NPP out of ideological alignment or belief in the NPP government’s economic performance, although I view their performance as the most abysmal in Ghana’s history. However, I believe the DMB factor in relation to the NER is a unique case that merits critical examination as outlined below.

First, voters in the NER must critically evaluate the commitments and leadership styles of both DMB and JDM regarding development in the region. Although DMB hails from NER, he appears to lack the necessary commitment and dynamic leadership to advance both infrastructure and human capacity development, particularly elite pro-reproduction. Since his appointment as running mate in 2008, he has not demonstrated a genuine investment in political elite pro-reproduction of the region. This is evidenced by the complete absence of members from the five northern regions, including NER in his campaign ‘kitchen team,’ which typically evolves into the influential ‘kitchen cabinets’ that shape development project distribution. Aside, it is interesting to note that till date, DMB cannot boast of a single person he has groomed in the NER since he was picked as a running mate. Political elite pro-re production is one of the main avenues of development and representation, particularly in new regions such as NER. Another recent example that point to this is the NPP government’s recent plans to construct new universities that excluded the NER as a potential site.

In contrast, JDM’s promise of new universities for all new regions, includes the NER, suggesting a more proactive and inclusive approach to development. These signs suggest that DMB is either not committed to the course of the NER or lacks the responsive leadership competencies necessary to galvanize the support from the collective leadership of his government and party structure for this cause. These failures by DMB to lobby development projects and to mentor or groom future leaders of the NER raises concerns about his suitability to influence development in the region when given the nod.

The second dilemma is that, voters in the NER must critically evaluate the problem of throwing their support behind a ‘son of the soil’, DMB whose credibility is inextricably linked to the unpopular incumbent party, the NPP. In stark contrast is a towering ‘extended son of the soil’ from a popular opposition party, the National Democratic Congress (NDC), represented by JDM. Unfortunately for DMB, the NPP has become nationally unattractive because of its abysmal management of the economy that has imposed severe economic hardships on Ghanaians. The evidence of its unpopularity is reflected in reputable polls such as the EIU and the Global info analytics both predicting a landslide victory for the NDC. This situation should remind NER voters to consider their choices carefully, as aligning with a party in decline could result in total exclusion from progressive representation and development. If anything, the impact of the prevailing economic challenges under the NPP does not insulate anyone, regardless of tribal allegiance, underscoring the necessity for collective voters to prioritize effective governance over regional loyalty. A step backward into the erstwhile NDC administration shows that all regions largely had a fair share of resource allocation and development under JDM of which Ghanaians across all the regions are yearning for his come back in 2024.

The final critical factor NER voters should consider is the danger of ‘throwing their eggs in one basket’. This strategy is analogous to a ‘political genocide’ against the opponent. While I do not predict that this will necessarily occur under JDM, unbalanced support could risk underrepresentation and stunted development should opposing parties gain power. For instance, when former President John Kufuor won the election in 2000, he bitterly refused to appoint a single person from the Upper West Region (UWR) to his cabinet, despite being the youngest and most deprived region in the country at the time. When his attention was drawn to this omission, he claimed he did not find ‘any qualified or suitable’ person in the region to appoint as a cabinet minister. His subsequent refusal to visit the UWR during thank-you tour after his re-election in the 2004 elections further underscored the deliberate neglect, revealing the potential consequences of political favoritism. Indeed, it appears that the NPP is more unscrupulous in this, as President Akufo-Addo recently disclosed that his government neglected development in Ekumfi due to the residents’ decision to vote against the NPP in the 2020 elections. Whilst advanced regions may weather the storm of political neglect due to their already developed status, newly created and underdeveloped regions like NER could face serious repercussions.

In summary, I would like to sound appeal to voters in NER to critically evaluate candidates based on their commitment and capability to develop the region, particularly as the 2024 elections approach. We should not be swayed by the superficial ‘son of soil’ narrative, which often leads to symbolic rather than substantive representation! Moreso, a focus on the merits of the two ‘sons of soil’ and the fortunes of their political parties will allow a level playing field which can go along way to set a significant precedent for Ghana's democracy.

Associate Researcher, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), BonnGermany