By Ghana News

Copyright ghanamma

Dr. Tom Asiseh, who describes himself as an independent presidential aspirant and member of the Ghana Diaspora Movement, has launched a pointed critique of President John Dramani Mahama’s economic approach, arguing that the administration has abandoned what he calls a divinely inspired Reset Agenda in favor of the politically popular 24 Hour Economy policy.

In an article titled “Beware of Political Smokescreen,” Asiseh contends that Ghana requires fundamental systemic transformation rather than specific policies targeting job creation or extended business hours. His intervention comes eight months into Mahama’s second term, as the administration works to implement its flagship 24 Hour Economy initiative, which officials say could create 1.7 million jobs over four years.

Asiseh frames his argument around a distinction between policy and system, suggesting that developed nations first establish foundational frameworks before implementing specific initiatives. He points to countries like the United States, Germany, and Japan as examples of nations that built comprehensive systems rooted in national values and discipline before layering policies on top of those foundations.

“There’s a difference between policy and system,” Asiseh stated. “Developed countries used a reset system for the development of their nation, then successive leaders later used policy to service the developed system.”

His Reset Agenda, as he defines it, represents a holistic framework that empowers institutions, strengthens governance, and rebuilds what he describes as moral and economic foundations. He draws parallels to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s post independence nation building blueprint, suggesting Ghana needs similar comprehensive transformation rather than incremental policy interventions.

“Ghana is like a periphery country struggling to develop; therefore, using a 24 hour economy policy may have a facetious look because it is not a system,” Asiseh argued. “The reset system was used by Dr Kwame Nkrumah to rebuild the broken walls of the Gold Coast, then laid the solid foundation for the new Ghana.”

By contrast, he characterizes the 24 Hour Economy as short term political narrative lacking structural depth. His metaphor of “patching the roof of a collapsing house” suggests he views the initiative as superficial intervention that doesn’t address underlying systemic problems he believes plague Ghana’s development trajectory.

The critique raises interesting questions about how national development actually occurs and whether Asiseh’s binary framing of systems versus policies accurately reflects historical reality. His invocation of developed nations oversimplifies complex development paths that typically involved messy combinations of institutional evolution, policy experimentation, and often considerable luck in timing and circumstances.

The United States, for instance, didn’t follow a neat blueprint from system to policy. Its development involved continuous institutional adaptation, policy failures and successes, civil conflict, and evolving governance structures over centuries. Similarly, Germany’s post World War II reconstruction involved specific policies like currency reform and Marshall Plan assistance alongside institutional rebuilding. Japan’s development featured active industrial policy rather than just systemic foundations.

Asiseh’s framework also raises questions about what constitutes a “system” versus a “policy” and who determines when foundational work is complete enough to justify specific interventions. The 24 Hour Economy, as described by the Mahama administration, actually encompasses structural elements including regulatory reforms, infrastructure investments, and institutional changes alongside incentives for businesses operating extended hours.

According to government communications, the policy document officially launched in July 2025 outlines approaches to agriculture, industry, supply chains, manufacturing, and human capital development. This broader scope suggests the initiative may be more systemic than Asiseh acknowledges, though implementation details will ultimately determine whether it functions as comprehensive transformation or narrow intervention.

The administration has reported economic progress during its first eight months, with inflation reportedly dropping from 23.8 percent in December 2024 to 11.5 percent by August 2025, marking what officials describe as the lowest rate since December 2021. Currency stabilization and other indicators have also shown improvement, according to government reports.

These developments complicate Asiseh’s narrative about abandoned foundations and political smokescreens. If measurable economic indicators are improving alongside 24 Hour Economy implementation, the distinction between systemic change and policy intervention becomes less clear cut than his framework suggests.

Asiseh’s background as an independent presidential aspirant provides context for his critique. He reportedly picked up nomination forms during the 2024 election cycle when 39 individuals sought to contest the presidency. His post election commentary positions him as an alternative voice questioning mainstream political approaches, though his actual electoral support and organizational capacity remain unclear.

His invocation of divine direction in describing the Reset Agenda adds a dimension that may resonate with some audiences but complicates practical policy discussions. Claiming that specific development approaches carry divine endorsement makes them difficult to debate on empirical grounds, as disagreement becomes framed as rejecting supposedly transcendent wisdom rather than preferring alternative practical strategies.

The broader question Asiseh raises about Ghana’s development path does deserve serious consideration, even if his specific framework oversimplifies complex realities. How should developing nations balance comprehensive institutional reform with targeted interventions addressing immediate challenges? When does pursuing foundational transformation become an excuse for delaying practical action that could improve lives now?

These aren’t easily answered questions, and reasonable people can disagree about optimal sequencing and emphasis. Asiseh argues for foundations first, policies later. The Mahama administration appears to believe specific initiatives like the 24 Hour Economy can drive systemic change through implementation rather than waiting for perfect institutional conditions before acting.

History suggests successful development typically involves iterative processes where policies and systems co evolve rather than following neat sequential patterns. China’s reform and opening up, for instance, involved experimental policies in special economic zones that gradually informed broader systemic changes, not comprehensive institutional transformation before any policy initiatives.

Asiseh’s lament that eight months into the administration he sees few visible signs of Reset Agenda implementation assumes such an agenda existed as formal government strategy. The Mahama campaign and early administration messaging emphasized economic reset alongside the 24 Hour Economy, but whether this constitutes the comprehensive framework Asiseh envisions remains debatable.

His call for “24 hour commitment to rebuilding foundational systems” rather than “merely a 24 hour policy” makes for compelling rhetoric. But translating such broad calls into concrete actionable programs proves difficult, which may explain why governments often favor specific initiatives with measurable targets over abstract systemic transformation agendas.

For Ghanaian voters and observers trying to assess the administration’s approach, Asiseh’s critique offers one perspective among many. His emphasis on foundations and systems highlights important questions about whether current initiatives address root causes or symptoms. But his framework’s limitations suggest the reality of effective governance involves less tidy processes than his system first, policy later sequence implies.

As the Mahama administration continues implementing its economic agenda, debates about approach and priorities will likely persist. Whether the 24 Hour Economy delivers promised jobs and industrial transformation while strengthening rather than neglecting systemic foundations will become clear through results rather than conceptual arguments. For now, Asiseh has staked out a position questioning the administration’s direction, even as others defend the chosen path.