Unnecessary Attacks on Chieftaincy

(Part 1)

Recently, two articles on chieftaincy were published by Ghanaweb. The authors of those articles attacked chieftaincy, and wished for its demise. The first article was written by Nana Amma Obenewaa (November 11, 2007), and the other by Nii Lantey Okunka Bannerman (November 20, 2007).

Nana Amma Obenewaa started by telling us what we already know that “Otumfuos, the Oseadeayos, the Osiems, the Togbes, and other titled chieftains are not Heads of State.” She went on to remind her readers that “Our chiefs, whether they are labeled as Kings, Super-Kings, or Mini-Kings, don’t have executive prerogatives, and are subject to the laws of the state.”

Why she wrote the above is beyond my comprehension because, to my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that our chiefs are above the laws of Ghana. Historically, some Ghanaian chiefs have been incarcerated for breaking the laws of the country.

She went on to attack chieftaincy because it “…. took part in some of the most frightful crimes, imaginable, in our nation’s history; the enslavement, and sale, of booties of war, as slaves, to European merchants.” We have to remember that if we are to go back into history, there would be no Ghana, and it is not right to attack an institution on the basis of its past.

In attacking chieftaincy, she noted that “…..the settlement of conflicts in all areas of socio-human relations are not the reserved specialty of chiefs as some would want us to believe.” Yes, conflict resolution is not reserved for chiefs but is there anything wrong with chiefs resolving conflicts? Another reason given by Nana Amma to abolish chieftaincy is that in some cases, idiots have been chosen as chiefs. I really don’t know the criteria upon which she declares some chiefs as idiots so it is difficult to comment on that statement. However, we all know that one person’s idiot is another’s Einstein. Therefore, we cannot seriously consider abolishing chieftaincy on that ground.

The most interesting statement by Nana Amma was that the threat to the Ghanaian state, among other things, is not the nation’s military, but the resurgence of chieftaincy. She went on to use the Dagbon crisis and the recent Anloga violence to support her claim. Both unfortunate incidents were conflict over ascension to power in which some people were killed. Unfortunate as these incidents are, they are not different from the series of military coups and counter-coups that Ghana has experienced over the years. If military takeovers are not threats to the Ghanaian state, how can chieftaincy be? If we have to abolish chieftaincy because of some conflicts over installation of chiefs then we may as well abolish parliamentary politics because on several occasions this institution has had conflicts over leadership.

According to Nana Amma, “the Tsito-Peki conflict, the Konkomba-Nanumba War, the Nkonya-Alavanyo hostility, among other low-scale conflicts prove that, allowing depraved institutions the latitude to impose their primitive ideology, and prehistoric authority could lead to senseless killings.” This assertion sounds almost like giving a dog a bad name to have an excuse to hang it. The Tsito-Peki conflict, and the Nkonya-Alavanyo hostility are all conflicts over land ownership, not over chieftaincy. Hence abolishing chieftaincy will not necessarily resolve such conflicts.

She claims that the functions of transferring society’s cultural heritage are diffused, and no Ghanaian chief can claim private ownership to the dissemination of society’s cultural values. My question is, who will supervise the major cultural cerebrations of Odwira, Akwasidae, Hogbotsotso, and the others if we don’t have chiefs?

Nana Amma condemns our chiefs for embracing modernity. For her, it is wrong for the chiefs to embrace Holland’s Aromatic Schnapps, to wear Western suits, and to jog in running shoes. She goes on to condemn our chiefs for acquiring educational titles like Doctor and Professor. It appears she is against our chiefs acquiring formal education. If a chief who is a professor at a college should not be titled a Professor then I don’t know what his/her title should be.

She also has a problem with some of our chiefs “enstool[ing] Westerners as ‘Nkosuohene’.” On that issue, she asked, “When did the despised European suddenly become an ally, and for what reason?” I don’t know who she speaks for when she says Europeans are despised. Despised by who? Here, I assume that she uses Westerners and Europeans interchangeably. If Westerners are despised, why does she live in Canada among Westerners? Perhaps it is good for Nana Amma to associate herself with Westerners but it is not good for our chiefs to do likewise. According to her, chieftaincy as an institution preaches against the unwholesomeness of Western culture. I don’t know where she got that from because that is not true.

For her, because of the nature of our past contact with Westerners our chiefs should despise them (Westerners). Our chiefs should not accept the friendship, assistance, and so on of Westerners. For generating foreign income, some of our chiefs are labeled dollar-minded chiefs. What should we call all those Ghanaians living abroad?

Surprisingly, Nana Amma blames ritual killings on chiefs. Here she asks a series of questions as reproduced below: What benefits does human sacrifice bring to our nation’s democratic governance? Would the defenders of chieftaincy still validate human sacrifice, and offer their family members to be sacrificed? Isn’t human sacrifice part of the chieftaincy culture? If not, since when did things change, and when did it dawn on the advocates of chieftaincy preservation that, culture is not a fixed concept, but a navigable idea that is malleable to rationality and humankind’s aspiration for perfectibility?

I don’t know what era she had in mind when she was writing her article. Historically, human sacrifice was part of chieftaincy/monarchy around the world. Thus, almost all known monarchies practiced human sacrifice. Fortunately, that’s a thing of the past. This should educate Nana Amma that chieftaincy is an institution that has undergone changes, and will continue to change. In fact, it may even die a natural death!

For the first time in my life, I have encountered an individual who condemns educational scholarships. Attacking Otumfuo Scholarship Fund she asks, “How many of the recipients of Otumfuo scholarship really need it? How many of these recipients would stay in the country, or return to help the nation, when they complete their education?” The answer to the first question is simple – all the recipients really needed it otherwise they would not have applied for it! I will answer the second question with questions. Should Otumfuo be worried about which of the recipients of the scholarship will eventually travel out of the country? Should he be concerned about which of those who studied outside the country will come back to Ghana? If Otumfuo Scholarship Fund is one of the reasons to condemn chieftaincy then God should come down immediately. What should we say about all those Ghanaians who benefited from Ghanaian scholarships and have migrated abroad? Perhaps we should close down Ghana Scholarship Secretariat because many of those who benefit from educational scholarships leave the country!

Nana Amma advises “Manhyia to fund the education of the ‘ahenekwaas’ whose current state will make slaves out of their children, and deprive the nation of productive brains.” Obviously, she does not know that the children of ‘ahenekwaas’ attend school. We can forgive her for not knowing that.

She also attacked chieftaincy on the grounds that some chiefs take on several wives. I will like to draw her attention to the fact that there are quite a number of Ghanaians who are not chiefs but married to several women at the same time. If polygyny is bad (and I agree it is bad) then we should encourage the government to proscribe it. And that means, it has nothing to do with chieftaincy. She went on to charge that, in some isolated cases certain chiefs have abused their power by violating the matrimonial sanctity of homes, and taken on the wives of the subjects. Which chiefs did that? Anybody who says that chiefs take on the wives of their subjects does not know much about chieftaincy. In fact, one of the major grounds to destool a chief is when he messes with somebody else’s wife.

Another attack on chieftaincy is based on her idea that “the nation’s partisan chiefs would not critique the unwise policies of the state even if it drives thousand lives to their shallow graves.” Here, she ignores that fact that there is a separation between chieftaincy and party politics. That is a fortunate separation!

According to Nana Amma, “in recent years, we have seen the exploratory interests of indigenous chieftains to internationalize chieftaincy. In Canada, the United States, Holland, etc, we are witnessing simmering conflicts over the enstoolment of shady characters as Chiefs and Kings; a project that is engineered by certain Ghanaian chiefs despite protestations from the subjects in the Diaspora.” That is totally untrue. The enstoolment of chiefs in the Diaspora was not engineered by chiefs in Ghana! In fact it is the opposite. Groups of Ghanaians, for example Asantes, may decide to have an Asantefuohene (not Asantehene) mainly for cultural purposes. When an individual is chosen, the group may invite a chief from Ghana to come and give blessing! On Ghana’s Independence Day cerebrations, the Asantefuohene will lead his group to showcase Asante culture, the Ewes, Dagbanis, etc would do likewise. I don’t know why this should offend anybody.

After wrongly submitting that Ghanaian chiefs impose Asantefuohene, etc on Ghanaians in the Diaspora, Nana Amma wrote, “Well, I thought, ‘Nananom-Nsamanfuo’ were disinclined to receiving anything foreign to the indigenous culture.” I was in the elementary school when I read about the exchange of gifts between Ghanaian chiefs and Europeans so I don’t know where Nana Amma got the idea that chiefs are disinclined to receiving anything foreign to the indigenous culture.

Any institution that does not serve any important purpose normally ceases to exist, and the same will happen to chieftaincy. Thus, chieftaincy as an institution will vanish as soon as Ghanaians feel that it does not serve any purpose.