National Economic Dialogue: NPP’s Boycott Fuels Concerns Over Bipartisanship in Ghana’s Economic Policymaking

The main opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP), missed a great opportunity to help contribute to the country’s economic development with their decision to boycott the National Economic Dialogue (NED), organized by the government to address the country’s economic challenges. While the government has maintained that the NPP was duly invited to participate, they chose to boycott the event and this has sparked criticism from political analysts and government officials, raising concerns about the potential long-term consequences of this move.
The NED, the second of its kind under the Fourth Republican Constitution, was seen as a crucial platform for stakeholders from various sectors of the economy to come together to discuss the state of the nation’s finances, identify key issues, and propose solutions. The first such dialogue was held in Senchi in 2015, during the tenure of President John Mahama during his first term, and was boycotted by the then-opposition NPP.
Discussions centered on the role of public-private partnerships in driving economic transformation, with participants emphasizing the importance of creating an enabling environment for businesses to thrive.
Compared to the 2015 Senchi Economic Forum, which was criticized for its perceived lack of inclusivity, the NED made strides in fostering a more collaborative and transparent process. The presence of private sector leaders, financial experts, and the presence of some NPP supporters showed it as a positive step towards building a national consensus on the way forward.
When the NED came to a close, a sense of cautious optimism pervaded the air. Participants were eager to see how the government would translate the event’s deliberations into tangible policy actions, with the hope that this dialogue would mark a turning point in the country’s economic trajectory.

With the international community closely monitoring the proceedings, the NED has become a litmus test for the Mahama administration’s ability to foster inclusive and transparent policymaking.
In the lead-up to the dialogue, there were widespread assertions that the ruling government had deliberately sidelined the NPP, denying them a seat at the table. However, Felix Kwakye Ofosu, the Minister of State in charge of Government Communication and a Spokesperson to President John Dramani Mahama, has refuted these claims.
The likes of Kwame Pianim, who is a leading member of the NPP, were there. A checklist showed that, former Governors of the Bank of Ghana under the NPP government, such as Dr. Paul Acquah and Dr. Ernest Addison, were invited, and so, there was no deliberate policy to exclude the opposition party.
What really happened was that the NPP decided not to participate in the dialogue just a week prior, setting preconditions for attending. This was replay of as the Senchi Economic Forum in 2015,which showed the party’s record of their willingness to participate in anything that was geared towards developing the country if it did not come from them.
The NPP’s decision to hold its own “True State of the Nation” address on the same day the Economic Dialogue commenced has been met with criticism from government officials and political analysts. Edem Agbana, the Member of Parliament for Ketu North, described the NPP’s boycott as “unpatriotic.”
“For NPP to boycott an important economic forum like this where we are all looking for solutions to the challenges that we are confronted with in our economy for me show them as a group of unpatriotic people,” Agbana said during a TV 3 New Day interview.
The potential long-term consequences of the NPP’s boycott are multifaceted. Firstly, the absence of the main opposition party from the dialogue denies the process a truly bipartisan and inclusive approach, which is crucial for building national consensus on economic policies. Without the input and participation of the NPP, the dialogue and any subsequent policy decisions may be perceived as lacking broad-based support and legitimacy.
Secondly, the NED presented an opportunity for the NPP to engage directly with the government, challenge its economic policies, and offer alternative solutions. By boycotting the event, the party has missed a chance to actively contribute to the policymaking process and shape the trajectory of the country’s economic development.
The NPP’s boycott may also be interpreted by the public as a lack of commitment to addressing the nation’s economic challenges, further deepening the existing political divisions, and eroding public trust in the political process. This, in turn, could hinder the government’s ability to implement necessary economic reforms, as the absence of cross-party support could lead to policy gridlock and a lack of coherent long-term economic planning.
Moreover, the NPP’s decision to hold a parallel “True State of the Nation” address on the same day as the NED, could exacerbate the partisan divide in the country, making it more difficult for the government to build the necessary cross-party support for major economic initiatives.
Alarmingly, the NPP’s boycott also denies the dialogue the potential benefits of cross-pollination of ideas, innovative solutions, and a more comprehensive understanding of the economic challenges facing the country. The absence of the main opposition party from this crucial forum may raise questions about the true inclusiveness and transparency of the process, potentially undermining the credibility of any subsequent policy decisions.
Political analysts and commentators urged the NPP to reconsider its stance and explore alternative strategies that could have allowed the party to engage constructively with the government and other stakeholders. Some of the suggested approaches include active participation and constructive engagement, proposing amendments or reforms to the dialogue’s structure, establishing a parallel economic forum, forming a bipartisan Economic Advisory Council, selectively collaborating with the government on specific economic initiatives, and leveraging media and public outreach to make their case directly to the people.
As Ghana grapples with its economic challenges, the absence of the main opposition party from the NED has raised concerns about the lack of a unified, bipartisan effort to address the nation’s pressing financial issues. The long-term consequences of the NPP’s boycott could include a continuation of partisan divisions, erosion of public trust, and a lack of coherent, broadly supported economic policies, ultimately hindering the country’s sustainable economic development.
The government’s defense of its inclusive approach and the NPP’s decision to opt out of the dialogue have highlighted the ongoing political tensions in Ghana’s economic discourse. Moving forward, it will be crucial for all political actors to prioritize the nation’s economic interests over partisan agendas and work together to find pragmatic solutions that can benefit the people of Ghana.