I write in response to an article by Mr. Benjamin Opoku Agyepong on Tuesday 3 January 2005 on this forum. He advocates the abolition of chieftaincy in Ghana, since it has allegedly been a primary cause of our woes. In the article, the writer makes wild, inaccurate and fantastic claims, and it is the reasoning behind his arguments that this writer attempts to address.
In his opening salvo, the writer infers that the USA?s development and democratic credentials are due to the fact that they ?did away with all forms of chieftaincy after their independence?. What the writer glaringly fails to acknowledge is that the US never had an entrenched chieftaincy (or monarchy), which had dated from times prior to British colonisation. In fact, as a matter of historical accuracy, the monarchy was a foreign institution in the US at the time of its independence from Britain under King George III. It was therefore perceived, in my view correctly, that this foreign institution had no place in the ideals of the new America and was accordingly cast off together with the yoke of British imperialism. This is remarkably different from the situation in a country like Ghana, where what we have in place now is the foreign system, and rather the chieftaincy institution has always been with us. The writer?s opening argument is therefore flawed ab initio.
Interestingly, the writer then goes on to lump Britain together with countries like Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and alleges that these countries? monarchical systems have ensured ?static or slow growth? in them, whilst the US, China, France etc have sped ahead because they have been devoid of monarchies. This is a very bizarre argument. For a start, when it comes to democratic credentials, Britain operates a constitutional monarchy and can hardly be put on the same par as, say Saudi Arabia?s monarchy, which has near absolute powers. Further, I do not think many Englishmen will accept that the French version of democracy is necessarily better then theirs, or that France is more advanced than the UK. The writer also fails to note that both Italy and Greece, for instance, have abolished the monarchy, and yet are far less advanced than the UK or Japan, which both retain the monarchy. It is therefore simplistic for the writer to proffer such arguments.
The writer goes further, to argue that the position of a chief should be an elected position. Perhaps he is in awe of the American system where almost every public official, from local judges to police chiefs and district attorneys, are all elected. The position of the chief in Ghana, by its very nature, would become a ridiculous one if it became an elected position. It is not, and should not, be subject to elections, because it then is no longer a chieftaincy system. In colonial Africa, the French destroyed the chieftaincy system by making the position and elected one. I can hardly see how that has made Senegal, Ivory Coast, Mali or Guinea more democratic and/or advanced than Ghana!
The writer also goes on to lay charges of corruption and tribalism at the door of the institution and states that this is evidence that it should be gotten rid of. This is rather breathtaking. The same allegation could be made thrown democratically elected governments all over the world. Should we rid ourselves of democratic government? Hardly, in my view. With great respect, it is opined that the writer?s point is devoid of sound logic.
It is worthy of note that in countries where the monarchy has been abolished (like France, Russia, Italy, Greece etc), this came about mainly as a result of a huge spontaneous social and revolutionary upheaval at a time when these rulers held an iron grip on the respective societies. The monarchy was therefore reviled and hated, and the people cast them aside at these momentous points in their history. Even in Britain, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the monarchy had to accept that its powers should be curbed, and these have been subsequently whittled to the levels today where it is merely a ceremonial position to be the monarch.
In Ghana, the institution of monarchy has obviously lost its firm grip on society that it held, and this is only proper, with the advent of the modern system of government, democratic elections etc. However, what must be noted is that in many parts of Ghana, especially in the rural areas, chieftaincy is the only effective and authoritative system in place. For historical and other purposes, it enjoys a great deal of deference and allegiance from the people. If a chief issues an order, it is more likely to be obeyed than a mere public official, who may not even be from the area. Harnessed properly, therefore, the institution can be a force for good. Lord Lugard, the British administrator, realised the benefits of this when he advocated and implemented Indirect Rule in Northern Nigeria in the early part of the 20th century, to great effect. There is no reason why government cannot effectively work in partnership with nananom to push across vital campaigns like HIV prevention and other social programmes.
Of course, just like every human institution, there are problems with chieftaincy in Ghana, and I accept that there are very serious problems indeed with some chiefs. But that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. For instance, we have the Chieftaincy Act, which deals with matters pertaining to the selection, recognition and destoolment/deskinnemnt of chiefs, among others. I acknowledge that yet more needs to be done by government to clean up the institution, and it right that this should be so.
Mr. Agyepong seems to believe that since the hereditary nature of the institution of chieftaincy is offensive to the ideals of democracy, it should therefore be dispensed with. Yet the argument is not as simple as it is made out to be. The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Denmark all enjoy constitutional monarchies. Is the writer seriously suggesting that these countries are undemocratic simply because they have monarchs who have not been elected to that position but are there by mere accident of birth? I hope not. These countries wisely acknowledge and important aspect of their heritage and have preserved it, albeit in an improved way from its past.
One of the reasons why Britain?s lawmaking process is viable is that the House of Lords, which is not elected, is able to effectively check bad laws passed by the House of Commons for the very reason that it is unfettered by the need to tow a party line, fight elections or cast nervous eyes over opinion polls. It is therefore in a unique position to check the House of Commons, which may rush to pass a bill into law, not because it is good law, but because it is populist.
Mr. Agyepong is wrong to conclude that people in Ghana no longer have faith in their chiefs. It is a sweeping statement without basis. There are a good number of sterling chiefs who are exemplary leaders, who command the respect of their people and an asset to them. We need more of these, not less.
Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.
