Perceptions shall always be there in the political market place, be it for the NPP, NDC or the minority parties.
It is a fact that the UP-NPP has been tagged as anti-Voltarian (due to the Akan-vrs-Ewe Schism) dating back to colonial days, and that was even re-fueled in the early 70’s in the 2nd Republic (1969 – 1972), in a Parliamentary heated debate between the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Victor Owusu (Agona-Kwabre Constituency), Dr. Godfred Kportufe Agama (South Tongu Constituency), and Dr. Obed Asamoah (Biakoye Constituency), where Mr. Owusu asserted Obed was being inward looking in his argument.
Dr. Obed Asamoah is said to have fueled it overboard by claiming, does Mr. Victor Owusu meant Ewe’s were inward looking?
It is also a fact that the P(NDC) has also been tagged as anti-Akan party, due to this same Akan-vrs-Ewe Schism. In his book, “The Ghana Revolution”, the late Prof. Kofi Awoonor, a former PNDC member in the late Jerry John Rawlings Military rule (1981-1993), who preached for Ewe’s hegemony, claimed, the 1981 Rawlings coup, was against the Akans.
I do not wholly agree with the writer on some of the points raised in this article.
(1) The axiom of the customer always right in the commercial market place cannot be true, so it is in the political market place.
In the commercial market place, a customer can be right when they act within the terms and conditions (T&C) of the Company, in line with commerce.
In the same way in the political market place, when a voter tries to do propaganda, to rubbish your gains, the politician will have to defend.
There are many strategies that a market leader in the commercial market place can adopt to defend their market share when they are attacked. These includes flank defense, counter-offensive defense, pre-emptive defense, position defence, contraction defense and mobile defense strategies.
In the same way, the politician in the political market place, can adopt any of these strategies to defend themselves when they come under attack (but of course, they have to be sensitive)
In the case of the Aflao Chief, the President was right on point to use the “counter defense attack” strategy to defend his Political market share, as the chief himself in the first place has politically exposed himself earlier, (by promising Ex-President John Mahama (JM) a certain number of votes from his catchment area on the 2020 poll. When that failed, the Chief has further pledged to fulfill his earlier pledge to JM come 2024 general election. These public statements, positioned the chief as an opponent (opposing politician) to the ruling government/ President.
The President counter attack, was on point to discredit the fact that the project had stalled since 2016 (where in actual fact, the E-block project in the Chief’s paramouncy, was 25% complete as at 2017, when President Akufo Addo took office, and as at the time the Aflao Chief attacked Government, by giving his four(4) months ultimatum to government to complete the E-block, the project was 96% complete). The Chief further arrogated power to himself, to open the school, should government fail by he (the Chief’s) orders at the end of the 4 months ultimatum.
POLITICAL GAINS AND LOSSES OF PRESIDENT’S JAB.
LOSSES
a) The UP-NPP will certainly lose some votes in the Volta Region from the hardliners. However, the question is, are these hardliners sympathetic to the UP-NPP tradition?
b) The opposition P(NDC), can have a Political advantage, by capitalize on the President’s jab on the Chief, to drum the anti-voltarian agenda, to create more disaffection for the ruling UP-NPP. However, more circumspection needed to be exercised by the opposition P(NDC), as their opponents ( UP-NPP), can counter-attack and clad the P(NDC) propaganda as as nation wreckers, preaching tribalism to destroy the peace of the state, as one people with a common destiny.
c) The vote loss in the Volta Region, will not matter much, as UP-NPP is already weak in the Volta Region. Their little gains cannot guarantee a Parliamentary win, as the writer wants to assume.
GAINS
a) The UP-NPP has gained a lot from the President’s jab in the nationwide political market place. The President “counter-attack defense” marketing strategy, has revealed that, the Aflao Chief was doing propaganda in favour of the P(NDC) in line with his pledge to giving massive votes to JM in 2024.
If the President should not have counter-attacked in his defence, the Aflao Chief’s propaganda, would have stand, by selling wrong fact to the national Political market place (to give credence to P(NDC)/JM claims, that their E-block projects has been abandoned), and this could have caused some vote losses to the UP-NPP on the national Political market place (nation-wide).
b) The President’s jab has ignited a debate as to how many of the E-blocks were completed by JM before he left office in January 2017?
Read also: President jabs chief of Aflao: The political marketing implications
The debates has revealed that, as at January 2017, the P(NDC)/JM had completed only 29 of the E-blocks out of the 200 pledge.
There is a Political Marketing advantage to the UP-NPP here because, out of the 29 P(NDC)/JM completed, World Bank funded 23 of them. So therefore, those that brought their own policy, were able to fund 6 completed E-blocks as at January 2017.
c) It has further revealed that, the UP-NPP Government has completed 31 of the E-blocks in their phase 1, and they are at various stages in completing phase 2 (where the Aflao E- block SHS is part), and has even attached dormitories to the ones in the bushes, to convert them to boarding School to give convenience to the students.
The UP-NPP gains a lot of customers (voters) in the Political market place, as this has discredited P(NDC)/JM claim by indicting them as not being able to fulfill their own pledges to customers (voters).
2. The writer’s second axiom “You do not win arguments against the customer/voter. Even when you win you have lost it.”
I don’t wholly agree with this axiom. In the commercial market place, the seller wins arguments against the customer, and still the customer maintains their loyalty to the seller/brand, (depending upon the context of the argument) though they may be dissatisfied.
In the same way in the Political market place, politicians can win arguments against voters (depending upon the context) and rather increase their Political market share (more votes).
In the commercial market place, the best way to defend your market share by an attacker is to counter attack. This also applies to the Political market place (if only the defender have their facts right to discredit the attacker’s arguments).
The President’s jab on the Chief, has in the first place discredited the Chief’s argument, and has also marketed the works that the ruling UP-NPP Government is doing, by continuing the projects left by the previous government P(NDC). The UP-NPP party, can further trumpet to their customers (voters) that, the P(NDC) rather has a history of not continuing with previous government projects (by citing UP-NPP Ex-President Kufour’s led affordable housing projects).
The writer further asserted in his point 3. “The politician can have his logic but the customer/voter has his emotions and owns his THUMB (the instrument for king making).”
I agree with the writer on this assertion. However, just as in the commercial market place, a customer buys or become loyal to a Brand’s product, based upon many reasons. In the same way, in the Political market place, customers (voters), buys (votes) a brand’s (Political party) product (policies) based upon many reasons.
CONCLUSION
So therefore, the President’s jab (counter-attack defence marketing strategy) on the Chief, cannot in itself alone, erodes the purchases (votes) from the buyers (voters) in the nation wide Political market place.
Source: James Mensah Bonsu
Political Marketer
Master of Arts (Marketing Strategy)
University of Ghana
(Business School)
Tutor (University of Cape Coast – CoDE)