This is Article 19 of a 24-part weekly newspaper series on voter trust and voting intentions in Africa. In the previous article, we examined how regional imbalance and organisational neglect can gradually erode trust even in areas that have historically supported a political party. We found that no political stronghold remains secure indefinitely when supporters feel ignored or taken for granted. This article examines an even more dangerous phenomenon: identity arrogance. Identity arrogance occurs when political parties become so convinced of their historical importance, ideological superiority, or inherited support that they stop earning trust and begin expecting it. Across Africa, many parties have discovered too late that voters can respect a party’s history while no longer trusting its future.
One of the greatest misconceptions in politics is that historical significance automatically translates into contemporary relevance. Political parties often derive pride from their founders, their role in national liberation struggles, or their past electoral successes. While history is important, trust is always evaluated in the present. Voters may admire what a party achieved decades ago while simultaneously doubting its ability to solve today’s problems. When parties become overly dependent on historical legitimacy, they risk replacing adaptation with nostalgia. Trust begins to weaken because citizens are asked to honour the past rather than evaluate the future.
The Convention People’s Party (CPP) offers one of the most important lessons in African political history. Founded by Kwame Nkrumah, the CPP led Ghana to independence in 1957 and became one of the most influential political movements on the African continent. At its peak, the CPP was not merely a political party; it was a national movement associated with liberation, industrialisation, Pan-Africanism, and social transformation. Yet despite this extraordinary legacy, the party gradually declined into electoral marginality. Today, its historical influence far exceeds its political influence. The question is not whether the CPP was important, but why such an important party ceased to be electorally competitive.
The answer lies partly in the distinction between identity and trust. For many years, the CPP continued to rely heavily on its historical brand and ideological heritage. However, generations that did not directly experience independence politics evaluated the party differently. Younger voters assessed contemporary organisation, leadership quality, communication effectiveness, and relevance to current challenges. While history created recognition, it did not automatically create trust. The party’s emotional connection with newer generations weakened because its historical achievements were not consistently translated into a compelling contemporary identity.
This lesson extends far beyond the CPP. Across Africa, political parties frequently assume that ethnicity, region, ideology, religion, or historical loyalty will guarantee continued support. Such assumptions create what the TRUST–VOTE Cycle™ describes as identity arrogance. Leaders begin to treat support as inherited rather than earned. They listen less carefully, communicate less effectively, and become less responsive to criticism. Over time, supporters recognise that their loyalty is expected rather than appreciated. Trust weakens because the relationship becomes one-sided.
More Read
Identity arrogance often emerges most clearly in political strongholds. Parties begin to believe that certain regions, ethnic groups, or social constituencies have nowhere else to go politically. As a result, organisational investment declines and engagement becomes transactional. Citizens may continue voting for the party out of habit, identity, or lack of alternatives, but emotional commitment gradually fades. The danger is that leaders interpret continued voting as evidence of strong trust. In reality, trust may already be declining beneath the surface.
Research on political trust suggests that citizens increasingly evaluate political organisations through performance and responsiveness rather than historical affiliation alone. This trend is particularly visible among younger voters across Africa. Afrobarometer surveys have repeatedly shown that younger Africans are often less attached to traditional partisan identities and more willing to reassess political loyalties based on current conditions. This does not mean identity has disappeared. Rather, it means identity is no longer sufficient on its own to sustain trust. Parties that fail to recognise this shift risk becoming politically stagnant.
The experience of dominant liberation movements across Africa reinforces this argument. Several parties that once enjoyed overwhelming legitimacy due to their role in independence struggles or democratic transitions have experienced declining support over time. In many cases, the decline did not occur because citizens rejected the historical contribution of these movements. Instead, voters concluded that historical achievements could not substitute indefinitely for present performance. Trust shifted from memory-based legitimacy to performance-based legitimacy. Parties that failed to adapt struggled to maintain relevance.
More Read
Identity arrogance also affects internal party behaviour. When leaders believe that support is guaranteed, they become less attentive to internal democracy, participation, and organisational renewal. Younger members struggle to advance, new ideas are viewed with suspicion, and criticism is interpreted as disloyalty. Over time, the organisation becomes intellectually stagnant. Trust declines because supporters no longer see a pathway from membership to influence. The party becomes a guardian of history rather than an architect of the future.
Yet the story of the CPP also contains an important lesson about trust restoration. Political decline is not necessarily permanent. Historical legitimacy remains a valuable asset if it can be connected to contemporary relevance. The CPP’s founding ideals—economic transformation, African unity, self-reliance, and social justice—continue to resonate with many citizens. The challenge is translating those principles into credible solutions for today’s realities. Trust can be rebuilt when historical identity is combined with organisational renewal, generational inclusion, and a compelling future-oriented vision.
This lesson applies equally to larger and more electorally successful parties. The New Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Congress have both built strong political identities over decades of competition. However, neither can assume that these identities alone will sustain trust indefinitely. Future generations will judge them not only by their histories but also by their responsiveness, fairness, competence, and ability to adapt. Trust must be earned repeatedly. No political brand is strong enough to escape this requirement.
The broader implication is that political parties die slowly before they die electorally. Long before votes disappear, emotional connection weakens. Long before supporters defect, enthusiasm declines. Long before defeat becomes visible, trust begins to erode. Identity arrogance accelerates this process because it blinds leaders to early warning signs. Parties become so focused on what they once were that they fail to notice what they are becoming.
The TRUST–VOTE Cycle™ therefore offers a simple but powerful lesson: trust cannot be inherited. It can be inspired by history, strengthened by identity, and reinforced by ideology, but it must ultimately be earned through behaviour. Parties that understand this remain adaptive, humble, and responsive. Parties that forget it often discover that historical significance is no substitute for contemporary trust.
The next article begins the final phase of trust erosion by examining media capture, religious capture, and the loss of organisational autonomy. It will explore how political parties weaken themselves when they become overly dependent on external validators rather than building trust through their own institutions, values, and performance.
Dr. Samuel Kenneth Adolphus Bernard Crabbe is a political leader, entrepreneur, and scholar focused on restoring trust, discipline, and effectiveness within political parties and governance systems in Africa. He has served as Greater Accra Regional Chairman and 2nd National Vice Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), where he played key roles in party organisation, national strategy, and institutional oversight. Beginning his political journey as a Constituency Organizer, he has operated across every level of party structure and understands, from firsthand experience, how internal systems shape electoral outcomes.
His work in politics is grounded in a clear conviction: parties do not lose elections because of messaging alone – they lose when their internal systems weaken, discipline erodes, and trust breaks down. His writing focuses on how political organisations can rebuild credibility, strengthen internal democracy, and re-engineer their structures to earn and sustain voter trust.
Dr. Crabbe holds a PhD in Business and Management from the University of Bradford’s Institute of Digital and Sustainable Futures, where his research examined how failures in governance, transparency, and accountability undermine trust in financial systems. He is a Lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University in the United Kingdom, teaching Leadership and Change, Organisational Behaviour, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work, and Sustainability and Responsible Governance – disciplines he applies directly to political and institutional reform.
