How critics have fueled the Agyapong campaign

Critics often dismiss Agyapong for lacking a university degree. Yet history is filled with leaders who proved their worth through action, not academic titles.

Agyapong’s record of service and problem-solving reflects this tradition. Vision, integrity, and real-world experience matter more than degrees, and Agyapong has demonstrated these qualities in his public service and leadership.

Effective leaders build strong teams, listen to diverse perspectives and make sound decisions—traits Agyapong has shown throughout his career.

Political systems such as that of the United States impose no educational requirements for the highest office, emphasising capability and public trust over credentials.

Agyapong not only offers pragmatic and innovative proposals but also stands out for his resilience and defiant spirit, resonating deeply with ordinary voters.

His campaign is more than just policy; it is an attitude, captured by the defiant spirit of “Don’t tread on me!” This posture, combined with a record of pragmatic proposals and entrepreneurial achievements, sets Agyapong apart.

The NPP’s history shows that endless debate and failed strategies have cost the party dearly.

Now, practical leadership and unity behind a results-driven candidate like Agyapong are essential.

Agyapong’s rise has placed critics in a bind: join his growing movement or risk irrelevance, as his support among NPP delegates and ordinary Ghanaians continues to grow.

An Alienation of Affections

Agyapong’s long-standing loyalty to the NPP and his embodiment of values such as discipline and honesty have earned him widespread admiration among Ghanaians, reminiscent of the public affection once shown to Nkrumah and Rawlings.

Anti-Agyapong intellectuals have a problem with their serial put-downs of the Agyapong campaign, largely because, in their view, it lacks intellectual respectability. Some have expressed sympathy with the pragmatic solutions offered by Hon. Ken Agyapong to national problems.

Yet, by and large, they hold decidedly mixed feelings about his populist campaign.

Notable and credible strategists have warned NPP members that excessive focus on the so-called “ugly” aspects of the Agyapong campaign should not blind delegates and Ghanaians to the fact that much of its momentum stems from legitimate anger directed at NPP leadership.

This leadership allowed the near-collapse of the party following its miserable defeat in the last general elections.

NPP delegates must view the Agyapong campaign as a “pumped boil,” alerting us to the infection lurking beneath the skin of our body politic.

A majority of NPP delegates have expressed sentiments similar to those of leading party members who are more sympathetic to the Agyapong campaign—sentiments that the so-called intellectuals grudgingly admit.

The frustration of NPP critics is real. Agyapong’s solutions, shaped by his private-sector success, are pragmatic and achievable, addressing the root causes of public discontent.

If this is the closest our public intellectuals can come to empathizing with the Agyapong campaign—by describing it as a “pumped boil”—then perhaps the Ghanaian intellectual elite has become radically out of touch with the visceral sensibilities of a significant portion of the population.

This disconnect may not trouble Agyapong’s harshest critics, who have largely ceased trying to influence the many Ghanaians sympathetic to his campaign.

Hon. Agyapong’s rise places his critics in a terrible bind. If they hope to retain influence within the NPP, they must either join the progressive Agyapong movement or battle it to the bitter end.

The latter strategy is fraught with peril. When intellectuals attack his campaign, they earn accolades within their circles but make no dent in the movement itself, owing to its strong support among NPP delegates and the massive grassroots nationwide.

Despite the criticism, the Agyapong campaign continues to preach peace and unity within the NPP.

The alienation of affection between critics and the NPP base resembles a marriage that has fallen on hard times.

It is difficult to determine who alienated whom first, where the blame lies, or whether blame should even be assigned.

Critics, appalled by the campaign’s success, blame Hon. Agyapong for launching a winning movement.

Logic 101 tells us that ad hominem attacks are invalid. However, this is not an attempt to rebut those intellectuals or their supporters.

Rather, it is an effort to examine the social psychology of Agyapong’s critics—an issue that Agyapong supporters must study more deeply.

Social Influence and Political Change

Social circles shape political views. Many align with elite opinions for prestige, but Agyapong’s movement draws its strength from ordinary people’s common sense and independence from elite influence.

This phenomenon is familiar to anyone who moves between opposing social camps. An individual in “polite company” one day and “rude company” the next readily feels the pressure of group conformity.

To gain acceptance from one group, he must often repudiate the values of the other.

Most people avoid this tension by restricting their social interactions to a single group that shares their values and tastes.

But this comfort comes at a price. Those who confine themselves to like-minded circles become victims of an irresistible illusion.

They are often unaware of how powerfully their social environment shapes their ideas.

When asked why they hold certain views, they sincerely believe these opinions are purely the product of independent reflection.

There are advantages to everything, including ignorance. Those who are unaware of elite opinion makers are indifferent to their views.

They judge ideas using common sense rather than elite standards of intellectual respectability. In doing so, they remain free from elite influence.

The Agyapong campaign has transformed Ghanaian politics by emphasizing good citizenship and politicizing the previously apolitical.

While ordinary Ghanaians have long shrugged off elite opinion, this posture historically weakened our political system. Those easily swayed by bribery or unethical inducements abandoned their convictions, forgetting they had everything to lose.

The NPP’s 2024 defeat shattered trust in the party’s leadership. Former bystanders have become active supporters of Agyapong’s campaign. Zeal has replaced apathy in NPP strongholds.

Supporters who misaligned in the last elections are now convinced that Agyapong can rescue the party and reverse its decline.

Suspicion has given way to confidence and trust in Kennedy Ohene Agyapong. Party members are no longer inclined to grant unchecked power to party handlers but instead seek to reclaim authority they believe was stolen from them.

The Agyapong campaign has energized disengaged voters by focusing on real issues and rejecting elite gatekeeping.

Attempts to dismiss it as lacking intellectual backing only reinforce its populist appeal.

The revolt that sparked Agyapong’s candidacy stems from deep dissatisfaction with a system where a small group monopolizes power, deciding which ideas and candidates are acceptable.

Defying the Iron Law of Oligarchy

The NPP’s decline in recent years reflects the overwhelming influence of elite gatekeepers.

Ideas rejected by political elites are branded outdated, while Agyapong’s progressive agenda continues to attract massive grassroots support. His supporters—often dismissed by elites—remain immune to prestige pressure because they do not care about intellectual respectability.

Antonio Gramsci described such groups as “marginalized outsiders.” Tough, independent, and fiercely proud, Agyapong supporters embody the “Don’t tread on me!” spirit and are prepared to back it with practical, empathetic policies.

Their greatest defense is indifference to elite approval. This trait frustrates intellectual critics but also defines the movement’s revolutionary character.

The Agyapong campaign represents a revolt of common sense against privileged opinion makers and calls for a return to grassroots empowerment: “We do not need an elite to govern us. We can govern ourselves.”

This does not mean abandoning democratic ideals. On the contrary, the “iron law of oligarchy” is the strongest argument for preserving democratic aspirations. Agyapong’s philosophy recognizes that even imperfect ideals can inspire positive action.

Ken Agyapong’s political ascent has reignited debate over what defines effective leadership. While critics emphasize academic credentials, history shows that transformative leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Lech Wałęsa rose through vision, resilience, and practical skill.

History teaches that freedom belongs to those who stand up for themselves.

The “Don’t tread on me!” spirit remains essential. If it is lost, liberty is lost with it. Agyapong’s campaign seeks to keep that spirit alive within the NPP and Ghanaian politics.