Others argue that there are too many problems with chieftaincy, especially in Ghana, while in essence without realizing the occurrences of some serious troubles infringed on us by democratic processes in Africa in general.

MISCONCEPTION OF CHIEFTAINCY

Some do not necessarily realize that the establishment of chieftaincy institution takes precedence over the advent of modern democracy. It is undeniable fact that such issues as occurrences where political parties clashing each other in Zaire-Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Mali, and Kenya purport a glimpse of distasteful flavor of politics and the entire democratic machinery in Africa.

Even in Ghana starting from CPP era thru AFRC/PNDC times, the country had experienced some bad moments and some serious political unrest. In contrast, the chieftaincy institutions have known few of the kind of instability, and even the few occurrences were mostly due to the political powers exerting external influence on traditional rulers.

I am not writing this article because I am a traditional chief of Adansi-Atobiase myself, but because, as a Ghanaian, I have the obligation to throw light on the obscured misconception of chieftaincy institution in general.

ROOTS

Chieftaincy is an institution established by God noting from the time of Pharaohs, Saul, David, Herod, and Solomon and so on. (Please refer to 1 Samuel 10:1). The key objective seemingly to create a leader and subject relationship, a social contract with a concerted motive that the leader would always protect and defend his/her subjects in times of war and also assumes the responsibility as the judge of the people and figuratively be a symbol of the cultural community.

For several thousands of years the installation of chiefs, have been through the selection of a person whose lineage can be traced to the stool. The colonial masters’ influences may have made some ethnic groups deviate a bit from their line of inheritance as had occurred in Cameroon and Botswana, according to Dr. Nyamnoh and even in Ghana according to oral tradition.

Bringing the chieftaincy back to Ghana colonial and post-colonial impact has greatly affected the autonomous powers that were originally vested in traditional chiefs. Modern system of governance being imported culture only educates Africans to reject their own traditions and cultural heritages to the advantage of post-colonial fashions, the so called modernized democracy.

In Africa, chieftaincy is a dynamic institution with pre-colonial roots in some cases, and largely colonial and post-colonial origins in others. Within these frameworks, chieftaincy is seldom credited with the ability to liberate or to work in tune with popular expectations, even when such expectations are largely unaccounted for by such competing rhetoric as liberalism and socialism.

Now that the central government assumes the function of defense and judgment the following questions come to mind: 1. What role is left for the chief to assume? 2. What kind of democracy does the chieftaincy institution represent?

I dare to say that chieftaincy institution has a great merit in African society and has even gained better recognition internationally. One typical example is GhanaFest annual ceremonies in Chicago,USA, with fiery food, traditional dancing, live music and ceremonial wear.

This signifies the plight of Ghanaians in diaspora portraying their rich cultural heritage that is centered on the chieftaincy institution. We should not allow a gloomy faction of some advanced world cultures overshadow our rich heritage.

At present however, scholars increasingly acknowledge the resilience of chieftaincy institutions, even in contexts like Mozambique where in the past they had been threatened with abolition. A renewed boom in chieftaincy is thus observed and many chiefs are taking up central roles in contemporary politics which must be encouraged in Ghana.

For example in Ghana, in the upcoming presidential elections, the country’s traditional rulers may use their influence to sway the election in favor of their preferred candidates just by fulfilling their traditional role in this democratic process.

CHIEFS BEING MISUSED

In general, chiefs and chiefdoms, instead of being pushed into the position of impoverished relics of a glorious past, have been functioning as auxiliaries or administrative extensions of many post-colonial governments, and as vote banks/brokers for politicians keen on cashing in on the imagined or real status of chiefs as the true representatives of their people.

Chieftaincy has thus had continued relevance. Evidence of this includes the fact that an increasing number of highly educated young men, some with doctoral degrees from European and North American universities, are being enthroned chiefs of various communities throughout the country. Unlike during the 1950s and 1960s when educated chiefs were rare. The practice of appointing and installing chiefs as representatives among their subjects in the diaspora has become quite common nowadays.

As sons and daughters of the soil of various home villages, some urban elite do not hesitate to invite their village chiefs to preside over ceremonies and functions aimed at enhancing their chances in the cities where they live and work. All these obviously account for meritorious status of the chieftaincy institution.

The argument that the chieftaincy institution is archaic and retrogressive is certainly disputable a fact that is too vague. The chieftaincy institution is an ongoing modernization process. In South Africa for instance, where even the ANC elite in struggle had predicted the passing of chieftaincy alongside apartheid, active dynamic re-appropriation of tradition has been observed through claims to chieftaincy by historically marginalized cultural communities seeking recognition and representation, and chiefs like Mangosuthu Buthelezi have played and are playing key roles at the centre of post-apartheid party politics and power.

In Ghana for instance, the role that the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II is playing is magnification of our rich culture embraced with the promotion of education. One can just observe the great achievement of the present Asantehene, the transformation of the Manhyia palace, and the modernization role is quite impressive. That is a boost to another level of modernization.

Going to the small towns chiefs play important role in the community. I, for example with a little resources, had mobilized all Adansi-Atobiase natives living home and abroad to be involved in communal labor to build a police station and a school which responsibilities would have been for the central government to assume.

Ethnic elite associations proliferate in the corridors of power and resources seeking political and economic recognition and representation for their regions or peoples as cultural units. They do not hesitate to call upon their chiefs to facilitate this process of bringing development to the home village, even if this entails rivalry and conflict with other chiefdoms.

Trying to define “Democracy” in this context is a difficult task, but I will try. Democracy has developed over the course of history and is present in many different forms today. In brief terms democracy is a form of government in which state authority is derived directly and/or indirectly from the people. Democracy may be practiced in several forms such as direct, representative (parliamentary-UK and presidential-USA), or mixed. Democracy is based on a certain image of man.

A society can be regarded as being democratic when, while recognizing the dignity of man, the state’s ultimate value is aimed at guaranteeing all citizens the right to equal freedom and the right to organize their lives in a responsible way while creating the social conditions necessary for this.

To this end, democracy is a value-bound political system whose aim is the realization of values rather than a system based on neutral rules of procedure. Therefore, democracy is more than the sum of formal procedures and laws. On this basis, I dare to say that the process of choosing a chief among the Akans also involves a democratic process.

In this article, I have argued that, instead of being pushed aside by the modern power elites - as was widely predicted both by modernization theorists and their critics - chieftaincy has displayed remarkable dynamics and adaptability to new socio-economic and political developments, without becoming totally transformed in the process. Chiefdoms and chiefs have become active agents in the quest by the new elites for ethnic, cultural symbols as a way of maximizing opportunities at the centre of bureaucratic and state power, and at the home village where control over land and labor often require both financial and symbolic capital. Upon this merit chieftaincy must be sustained as rich culture, as African identity and as a great empowerment for socio-economic and political developments.

Credit: Ghanaweb

<<< Previous Page