In every democracy, political parties are the vehicles that carry ideas, hopes, and aspirations of millions of citizens. They must be institutions rooted in collective sacrifice, shared responsibility, and sustainable structures. But when a party becomes overly dependent on one or two individuals to bankroll its activities, it places itself on a dangerous path that can weaken, hijack, or even destroy its very foundation.

Recent claims by two presidential aspirants of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), who each alleged they personally funded lion shares of the party’s operations in the last elections, highlight this troubling reality. If true, it signals a glaring weakness: a political organisation aspiring to win over five million votes relied disproportionately on the pockets of a few individuals. This is not only unsustainable, it is perilously reckless.

History has shown us that political movements overly reliant on wealthy financiers eventually become hostage to them. When one man’s wallet becomes the engine of a party, that man can mortgage the party at will. He dictates priorities, steers decision-making, and often silences internal democracy. This undermines the collective spirit and sacrifices of ordinary supporters and members. Instead of a party of people, it risks becoming a party of patrons and clients.

Moreover, over-dependence on a handful of financiers discourages wider contributions and ownership. Party structures that ought to mobilise resources across regions, constituencies, and grassroots members grow weak. People sit back, waiting for the gravy to flow, willing to sacrifice internal accountability and democratic checks for the comfort of a well-fed campaign. In the end, loyalty is not to principles, but to purse strings.

This creates an unstable ecosystem. A sudden withdrawal of support from these financiers can collapse a campaign or leave the party stranded. Worse still, financiers may demand policies, contracts, or appointments as repayment, placing private interest above public good. The line between party and personal business blurs, and the party loses credibility as an independent institution of democracy.

For the NPP and indeed every political party in Ghana this is a wake-up call. Sustainable financing must be built on broad-based contributions, transparent systems, and innovative resource mobilisation. Members must take ownership of their party by contributing their widow’s mite. Structures should be empowered to raise funds at the constituency and regional levels. Technology can be deployed to encourage small but consistent donations. Above all, parties must cultivate a culture where accountability and transparency in the use of funds is as important as winning elections.

It would serve the NPP well if its Council of Elders urgently convened a meeting bringing together representatives of Elders from all constituencies to craft a strategy for identifying a capable core of financiers spread across constituencies and regions. Such an approach would broaden the financing base and democratise ownership of the party. Even a more effective fee-paying membership structure could achieve this to ensure that no single individual holds the party hostage.

Democracy thrives when political parties are robust, independent, and people-owned. It dies when parties are mortgaged to a few financiers. Ghana cannot afford the latter.