, Can Democracy Accommodate Chieftaincy And Tradition?

Can modernity/foreign culture ultimately alter tradition as some people have been advocating for? Or better still, can democracy completely do away with our time tested traditional institutions especially those that have been seen else where to be coexisting with democracy perfectly? I am not an expert in traditional issues and I will not also pretend to know much but one thing I will not hide is the fact that my personal allegiance to my chief and some of my traditions that have been tested to coexist with democracy is unwavering.

All the above questions have become ripe for critical and impartial scrutiny and analysis as a result of the traditional battle between the dignified people of Tuobodom (Asanteman council) and that of Tachiman chief, and the comment which has ensued from some section of the public. If a people want to owe allegiance to a particular king, then others are angry. Are the people involved indicating they are tired of this traditional arrangement?

It is apparent that democracy calls for expression of varied views and legitimately, everybody is entitled to any view expressed. Therefore it is not surprising that people just get up and advocate for the abolishing of chieftaincy without even suggesting the right institutions that can replace them as our political institutions, as they appear now, are not working in the interest of the much needed and isolated ordinary person. Let me remind them that chieftaincy survived colonization!

I was not surprise that during an interview conducted by Paul Adom Okyere with a specialist in traditional issues last week, he posed similar questions to him and the answer he gave was simple, ‘who will fill the vacuum if chieftaincy is done away with’? But some of us are not only concerned with the vacuum but will not allow this noble institution to die. For those who are ready to burry chieftaincy, we will forgive them because we believe they are exercising their democratic right.

If some people who call themselves pro-republic in UK are even advocating for the head of the monarchy for decades now, all in the name of democracy but have not succeeded, how readily will we Africans who appear to be ready to reject any thing we have including even our teeth and embrace everything foreign without thinking of the consequences first, or allowing time to test our so called new discovery, attempt such a vain venture?

But the issue that is of particular importance to me is the attempt to ascribe so many meanings to the allegiance that the good people of Tuobodom, owe to OTUMFOUR! Such people go to the extent of condemning chieftaincy as autocratic system of governance that should not be entertain at all and add that they do not see why something like that is happening in democratic Ghana! They then question why part of a region should be paying homage to a king in another region especially in the case of Tuobodom and Asanteman.

But wait a minute; are Canada and Australia democratic countries? Is the queen of Britain not controlling these two huge democracies from UK as head of state? How come those sometimes respected and well known political and social analysts talk as if Ghana is the only democracy that this is happening? Is it that they do not know the story of these huge and time tested democracies? Or they know but are blinded by politics or better still are just envious. Have they forgotten that chiefs still sell our lands and hence give even our governments place to stay?

But the irony is that these commentators tend round to defend certain authoritarian regimes they claim to believe in which never practiced democracy. But does that mean that the political divisions came to stripe people from their inheritance and perpetually entrenched this division among us as Asantes, Gas, Bonos, Dambas,etc to the extent that other regions become a no go zone? Then I really pity those people who live on the various boundaries and have been politically regrouped though they do not see themselves as part of the regions they find themselves. That is why I cherish the Akan clan system where you can identify a family in any other Akan state. Frankly, this political division was meant to make modern political administration easy but not to curtail the power and control of a time tested tradition.

But if this political divisions came to stripe us of our inheritance, to the extent that even our clan system ca not work, then we as a people are not ready for that. Attempt should therefore be made to allow the two systems to co-exist. On the other hand, if our first president had clear mind and people want to use their political clout to shift the goal poles to suit their whims and caprices, then they should never think it will be easy. Imagine, after 100 years, the country Ghana see the need to divide Ashanti region into two because of its growing size, which will result in creation of two regional houses of chiefs, will people vehemently prevent the two regions from paying allegiance to one king in the name of a political division?

So if Omanhene of Tuobodom attends regional house of chiefs’ meeting at Sunyani, is it binding that he should come under the control of the Tachiman chief? But if the Tachiman chief does not like the time-tested arrangement but thinks democracy should change the situation, and then he should abdicate the stool since my study of democracy at Legon never talked of chieftaincy. Should this man reap where he or any of his family never sowed? Is that not the problem with the Ghanaian that some people want to reap what their fathers could not sow instead of humbly and legitimately preparing the future for their kids and communities? In the Ghanaian society, anybody who toils and begins to progress then becomes the public envy and enemy. People then begin to impute meanings into their wealth and even try to blackmail them especially when they are politicians, describing them as arrogant, forgetting about the toils, sacrifices and the rejection their families suffered when they were ‘nobodies’, as use in the Ghanaian parlance.

But there are some people like my self who endorses and appreciate excellence, who will credit people for what they and their families have been able to achieve which eventually has benefited the whole society, and not unnecessarily criticize them. Our focus should on those who use crude ways to amass wealth for their families at the detriment of society. Unless evil is sensed, then even if the beneficiaries are lazy people as some want us to believe, it is legitimate that they enjoy from their family’s excellence. In this case, their Joseph’s have come and it could be that I may even be the Joseph of my poor family.

It is in this vain that I cherish and adore the Asante kingship where everybody remains in his lane and never become envious of the other. If my admired chiefs are doing this, how more I who has no stool in my house! I will just stand at a distance and admire them and happily assist if I am given the opportunity. But I will definitely prompt them in the spirit of democracy to ‘slow down’ a bit when they are going wayward. I recognize and endorse their control. Call it understanding! Call me educated idiot! Who is more educated than the Brit, Canadian and the Australian? The ordinary Ghanaian will never be treated as that of the families of our chiefs and now our presidents, never and not in any part of the world!

They have carved certain standard for themselves and their generations will enjoy. See how easily Samia Nkrumah, the daughter of our first president, won her parliamentary seat even when she was not known. Busia too was in the 2008 electoral race though she did not win. Even the women in such families do not want to drop their surnames even when they marry! Mark it and very soon, you will hear of the Rawlings’, Kufour’s and the Mills’.

If these people are building their own traditions in the name of politics which I hope to build mine, who can tell me to reject my pride, the tradition of my forefathers when I know it can co-exist with my new found hope as in Britain, Australia and Canada.

WAIT A MINUTE! WHILES ALL THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES HAVE A HISTORY, ALMOST ALL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES EITHER HAVE NO HISTORY OR THEY HAVE ALLOWED THEIR HISTORY TO BE ERODED BY SO CALL MODERNITY WHICH IN ESSENCE, IS FOREGN CULTURE. INSTEAD OF CRITICISING ASANTE SYSTEM, THERE ARE GOOD LESSONS THAT WE CAN LEARN; ORDERLY ARRANGEMENT, TOLERANCE AND A SATISFIED ASANTES AND ASSOCIATES.THIS CULTURE CAN NOT EASILY BE ERODED AS OTHERS, WISE UP!