The future of the NDC’s communication machinery comprises a burgeoning generation of communicators who redefine the party’s communication style, challenge established narratives and confront political opponents with facts and references drawn from sources once celebrated by those opponents.
Among this emerging generation is Julius Kwame Anthony, whose communication approach has increasingly drawn attention, particularly his use of historical references and publicly available documents to challenge narratives advanced by political opponents.
But beyond the recent controversy surrounding Julius lies a much bigger question about Ghana’s political communication culture: Are we genuinely concerned about truth and responsible communication, or do we simply object when the truth, or a particular source of reference, becomes inconvenient to our political interests?
Every source of reference may be contested. A document may be interpreted differently depending on the lens through which it is viewed. Its contents may be accurate, inaccurate, incomplete, or subject to further scrutiny. Yet, for those whose political narratives are reinforced by such sources, the same documents often become authoritative references.
This is where the question of consistency becomes important.
During the eight years of the NPP’s administration, much of the political messaging directed at former President John Dramani Mahama was built around allegations, insinuations, and narratives that often lacked credible substantiation.
One of the most notorious examples was the “Papa No” narrative, which sought to associate the then former president with women who had merely taken photographs with him during his usual public engagements with citizens, including influential women who believed in his vision and leadership.
These claims, which were never substantiated with credible evidence, became a significant feature of political communication, circulated repeatedly by party communicators and political actors.
What made the situation particularly troubling was the extent to which such narratives were embraced, celebrated, and amplified within the political establishment that advanced them.
The communicators who propagated such narratives were not necessarily condemned by their political fraternity. On the contrary, some were celebrated as formidable communicators, applauded for their ability to dominate the political conversation and inflict reputational damage on their opponents.
It is against this background that the controversy surrounding Julius Kwame Anthony deserves to be examined.
Julius has faced criticism for referencing a WikiLeaks report in his communication. The resentment directed at him appears, in part, to stem from the fact that he is a young man speaking about an older political figure.
But does age automatically invalidate a young person’s right to engage in political discourse? Does the fact that someone is younger mean that they must remain silent when discussing matters of public interest?
And more importantly, if a source is considered credible or authoritative when it supports one political narrative, should it suddenly become unacceptable when it is cited by someone from the opposing political tradition?
To be clear, the existence of a statement in a WikiLeaks document does not automatically make that statement true. Every source must be examined critically, and every communicator has a responsibility to ensure that the information they share is accurate, contextualised, and fairly represented.
However, that standard must apply universally.
It cannot be invoked selectively against a young NDC communicator while being conveniently overlooked when political actors on the other side propagate damaging narratives about their opponents.
If the concern is truth, then let us be concerned about truth consistently. If the concern is responsible communication, then let us demand responsibility from all political communicators, regardless of their party affiliation.
If the concern is respect for the elderly, then let us also remember that respect cannot be used as a shield against legitimate public scrutiny.
The emerging generation of NDC communicators represents a new chapter in the party’s communication history. They are not simply inheriting the responsibility of defending the party; they are also challenging the conventions through which political narratives have traditionally been constructed and sustained.
Julius Kwame Anthony may not always get everything right. Like every communicator, he must be prepared to defend his claims, substantiate his references, and accept criticism where necessary.
But the criticism must be fair. It must be principled. And above all, it must be consistent.
The real question is not whether Julius is young enough to speak or whether the person he is speaking about is old enough to be respected. The real question is whether we are prepared to apply the same standards of truth, accountability, and responsible communication to everyone.
Perhaps the babies with sharp teeth have finally come of age. And perhaps what unsettles some people is not necessarily the sharpness of their teeth, but the fact that they are beginning to challenge narratives that others had grown comfortable advancing without consequence.
Ultimately, the test of political communication is not who speaks, how old they are, or which political tradition they belong to. It is whether their claims can withstand scrutiny. If truth and responsible communication are the standards, then those standards must apply to everyone, without exception.
By Nasrullah Ibn Mutawakil
Deputy TEIN Coordinator, Central Region
