0
0 The call to retain Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin as Minority Leader in the name of unity is emotionally appealing but politically and administratively flawed. Unity in politics is not declared; it is demonstrated through conduct, loyalty, and trust, especially after a decisive internal contest.
The central issue is not personality, forgiveness, or parliamentary competence in isolation. It is trust.
Hon. Afenyo-Markin worked actively against the election of the party’s duly elected presidential candidate, Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia. This is not conjecture; it is evidenced electorally. In Afenyo-Markin’s own constituency, Dr. Bawumia reportedly polled about 10 percent of the votes cast. In political terms, this is not neutrality, restraint, or silent dissent. It is outright rejection.
Best practice across democratic systems is clear. You cannot lead the parliamentary machinery of a party whose presidential candidate you demonstrably opposed. Doing so creates a leadership contradiction at the very top of the opposition’s command structure.
The Minority Leader is not merely a parliamentary tactician. He is the chief political mobiliser in Parliament, a key liaison between the flagbearer and MPs, and a strategic gatekeeper of information, timing, and resistance. Placing someone in this role who did not believe in the candidate’s leadership weakens coordination, blurs messaging, and creates room for quiet sabotage, intentional or otherwise.
Politics runs on alignment. Where alignment is absent, effectiveness collapses.
Post-primary visits, statements of support, and public pledges, while welcome, do not erase prior political action. Forgiveness is a moral virtue; leadership appointments are strategic decisions. In serious political organisations, forgiveness does not automatically translate into retention of sensitive authority, and reconciliation does not mean maintaining people in positions of maximum leverage.
Dr. Bawumia may be forgiving. The party, however, must be institutionally prudent.
The argument that Afenyo-Markin should stay to preserve institutional memory ignores a more dangerous reality. A Minority Leader who cannot be fully trusted becomes a liability in high-stakes negotiations, bipartisan dealings, and confidential strategy. In Ghana’s political context, where inducements, cross-carpeting, and soft collaboration with ruling governments are not unheard of, trust is not optional.
Even the perception that the Minority Leader may not be fully loyal to the flagbearer weakens caucus discipline, external confidence, and internal morale. Politics punishes ambiguity at the top.
True unity is achieved when leadership roles reflect the outcome of democratic contests, key positions are held by individuals whose loyalty is beyond question, and the parliamentary front speaks with one voice, one strategy, and one command. Retaining Afenyo-Markin signals the opposite, that open opposition to the party’s chosen leader carries no organisational consequence.
That is not unity. That is institutional confusion.
The question is not whether Afenyo-Markin is intelligent, experienced, or capable. The question is simple. Can the parliamentary leader of the NPP be someone who clearly did not want the party’s presidential candidate to win?
In any serious political organisation, the answer is no.
For trust, coherence, administrative effectiveness, and the protection of the party’s electoral future, Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin must step aside or be replaced. Not as punishment, but as a necessary act of political realism.
Unity without trust is theatre.
And theatre does not win elections.
