'Son of the soil politics' has played, and continues to play, a crucial role in the Ghanaian political landscape since independence.   It is a political strategy by which political parties leverage on the indigenous identity, cultural heritage, or the historical ties to their regions or lands of origin for electoral advantage.   In the lead-up to independence and during the early post-independence period, it was negatively exploited as a political strategy to the extent that it threatened the stability of the republic, risking civil unrest and the collapse of the country.   In response to this volatility, the formation of political parties along ethnic, religious and regional lines was legally prohibited in both the 1960 and subsequently the 1992 constitutions.   However, since the 4th Republic, an informal consensus has emerged, leading to a de-facto integration of 'son of the soil politics' into the nation's body politic.   Although 'son of the soil politics' is used as one of the menus of electoral campaign strategies by politicians, in return, it is expected that when such politicians get the nod to power, they will promote and implement policies that favor their communities in areas such as resource distribution, political representation, and social services.   To curb the negative consequences of unfair distribution of resources and group exclusion, that often result from it, political parties have sought to leverage its positive aspects for nation-building.   Thus, seeking to transform the potentially-divisive curse of 'son of the soil politics' into a blessing - a tool for social cohesion through inclusive representation and development.   For instance, the practice of balancing presidential and vice-presidential candidate tickets across regions or religious affiliations highlights these efforts in our politics. The author   Indeed, the selection of JDM and DMB as running mates and currently, flag bearers of their respective parties exemplify this arrangement. The selections of their running mates largely reflect this.   Incidentally, whether out of coincidence or divine providence, these two candidates are both 'sons of the soil' from the former Northern Region (NR) which gave birth to their respective new regions, JDM in Savanah Region and DMB in the NER.   As a result, the framing of 'son of soil politics' among constituents has challenged the conventional wisdom of this tactic but also exposed its weaknesses.   For instance, in their desperate quest for victory in the 2024 elections, the NPP wing in the NER and their party communicators are promoting DMB as a 'son of the soil' project.   This narrative seems to be encouraging the NER to 'put all its eggs in one basket' by rallying around DMB in the belief that his election as president will facilitate development and representation in the region.   But is it a given that having a 'son of the soil' at the helm of affairs as president will automatically drive development and increase representation of people of the soil? No! In the political history of Ghana, the results of this experiment are ambivalent as having a 'son of the soil' in power does not necessarily guarantee progress or representation in the government of the winning political party.