INTRODUCTION
Historically Chieftaincy was the political and social institution that fully run and controlled various ethnic groupings before the advent of the white man and subsequent colonialism. They also ran as spiritual leaders within a cephalous arrangement.
When the British colonized the Gold Coast, they decided to use the well structured Indigenous Chieftaincy Institution to govern the people, referred to as indirect rule, for about one hundred years. This was because the British had understood and acknowledged the Chieftaincy system to have been time-tested and enduring with the potency to mobilise and control the people who held strong allegiance to Chiefs.
Under this system, most Chiefs were also spiritual leaders and were consequently seen by their subjects to have the backing of the gods and ancestors of the society. Their stools which constituted the symbol of authority and power base had spiritual aura. The Golden Stool is an example of the spiritual nature of the source of power of Chiefs. To disobey the Chief was synonymous to incurring the wrath of the gods and ancestors.
With their divine power base and allegiances, Chiefs ensured social mobilization, order, social cohesion, security, justice and development. They controlled crime and social deviance. They had their own guards, sat in adjudication, tried cases and imposed fines; compliance with their ruling was almost total.
Unfortunately, after independence, Ghanaians and the political leadership were caught in a dilemma as to what role and functions Chiefs must play in the governance structure of the new nation. The new political leadership saw some chiefs as part of the colonial administration and therefore was not ready to accept their relevance within the new independence dispensation. The institution was cursorily seen as reactionary, outdated, lethargic and a colonial appendage. These unfortunate views were, and still remain, the problem that influenced the role and function of Chiefs in the shaping of the 1992 Constitution.
Dr Kwame Nkrumah in his desire to quickly assume all-power and transform the society into a socialist country decided to fashion administrative and local government system that would help him contain the power and authority of powerful Chiefs. In this, he ignored the consideration that the role and place of chieftaincy as a domesticated, deep-seated and time tested institution that could best help advance the sustainable cause of the people and society at large, but pandered to parochial political interests.
‘The independence constitution of 1957 provided protection against easy amendment of a number of its clauses. It also granted a voice to Chiefs and their tribal councils by providing for the creation of Regional Assemblies. No bill amending the entrenched clauses of the constitution or affecting the powers of the regional bodies or the privileges of the Chiefs could become law except by a two-thirds vote of the National Assembly and by simple majority approval in two-thirds of the regional assemblies. When local CPP supporters gained control of enough Regional Assemblies, however, the Nkrumah government promptly secured passage of an act removing the special entrenchment protection clause in the constitution, a step that left the National Assembly with the power to effect any constitutional change the CPP deemed necessary’.
Furthermore, ‘Among the CPP’s earliest acts was the outright abolition of Regional Assemblies. Another was the dilution of the clauses designed to ensure a non-political and competitive civil service. This allowed Nkrumah to appoint his followers to positions throughout the upper ranks of public employment. Thereafter, unfettered by constitutional restrictions and with an obedient party majority in the assembly, Nkrumah began his administration of the first newly independent African country south of the Sahara’.
Indeed the First President, Dr. Nkrumah was so opposed to the chieftaincy institution such that he was reported to have threatened to make ‘Chiefs run and leave their sandals behind’. This created the dichotomy between the political system and chieftaincy within the governance structure in this nation. The stage was therefore set for the conflicts in policies which have created myriads of contradictions within the local governance system and structure. This nation has consequently kept on struggling within itself to develop a successful relevant and effective local governance system for sustainable development.
The 1992 Constitution confirms its disgust of Dr Nkrumah and the CPP conspiracy against Chieftaincy by providing insulation against political patronage in Article 270 (2) which unambiguously states that “Parliament shall have no power to enact any law which (a) confers on any person or authority the right to accord or withdraw recognition to or from a chief for any purpose whatsoever; or (b) in any way detracts or derogates from the honour and dignity of the institution of chieftaincy.”
My research also reveals that, in the rush to attain ‘self-government now’, CPP political leaders could not take advantage of the admonitions and instructions of the United Nations and the British Colonial Administration to help colonies seeking independence, to succeed. Leadership in its quest simply created a ‘victim mindset’ to establish a wedge between the colonial master and the local people; this was to whip up emotional support to win political power for themselves and not for the people, as it has turned out to be.
THE UN DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
As stated above, the United Nations in its declaration on Human Rights had admonished and instructed member states to value the true blends of socio-cultural, political and economic circumstances of their people in order to enhance respect for human rights as a matter of cause and not a contentious one.
Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Paris 1948, Article 27 states that: ‘”Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”
It explains further that, ‘The right to take part in cultural life is respectful of cultural diversity and serves as a protection against social exclusion. Culture must be understood broadly to mean the shared way of living of a group of people, including their accumulated knowledge and understandings, skills and values, and which is perceived by them to be unique and meaningful. States have a responsibility to take all necessary measures to prevent the poor and other marginalized groups from being socially excluded and to enable them to participate in the social, cultural and political life of their respective communities’.
Additionally, the declaration states that, ‘In education, cultural identity should be considered also: The quality of education should be directed to the development of the child’s personality, talents and abilities to their fullest potential, and to preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in a spirit of tolerance and respect for human rights, the natural environment, the child’s parents and cultural identity, and civilizations different from his or her own. School discipline shall/should be administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity’.
This is the mandate upon which Ghana gained independence in 1957, to join the comity of nations. Fifty-nine years and more on, on our balance sheet, the nation has become bedeviled with several unanswered questions without answer due to poor appreciation of our socio-cultural relevance to development resulting in myriad of confronting our sustainable development. How did, and do our political leaders appreciate the admonishing of the United Nations?
THE BRITISH
The British in her preparation to grant self-government to the colonies had in 1946 set up a committee to understudy and assess the colonies in readiness for this. The Colonial Office: Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies published the report on ‘Education for Citizenship in Africa’, dated 1948 in London from His Majesty’s Stationery Office.
The Report made far reaching revelations, observations, admonitions and instructions to guide the colonies on the path to self-government, so as to evade avoidable pitfalls that could create developmental disasters. It among others clearly stated the British Government’s position on self-government thus under the sub-heading: ‘the colonies must be trained for self-government’.
Under this topic, the Report noted that, ‘Political ideas in Britain have been fruitful of political action and constitutional development; and it is again natural and desirable that peoples under British administration should aspire to tread the path of evolutionary democracy which Britain has marketed out to the world. The very fact of their Colonial status is bound to become irksome. Crown Colony status, however, is not uniform or fixed. On the contrary, it is evolutionary…….His Majesty’s Government has often proclaimed that responsible self-government is the goal at which all Colonies should aim. On 13th July, 1943 the then Secretary of State, Colonel Oliver Stanley, described the central purpose of British Colonial administration as a pledge “to guide Colonial peoples along the road of self-government within the framework of the British Empire, to build up their social and economic institutions, and to develop their natural resources.” On 9th July, 1946, his successor Mr. A. Creech Jones described it as “to develop the Colonies and all their resources so as to enable their peoples speedily and substantially to improve their economic and social conditions, and, as soon as may be, to attain responsible self-government.”
Is it not curious to note that some of independence political agitators made us to believe that without them independence would never have been won. Was it not a ploy to create heroes where one did not exist? On the political front, the Report had this to say, ‘We wish to emphasise that political machinery or economic devices will not ensure true democracy. Democracy requires a temper of the general mind which will only spring from a temper of the general mind found in the individual citizen. Unless the true democratic temper is present, the most beautifully devised political or economic machinery will result in nothing but slavery. If this temper is present, details of machinery matter little: direct democracy as in ancient Athens, the village council system which exists today in some parts of Africa, the British representative system, the Swiss or Australian referendum may all enable the general will to be expressed, though such machinery can do nothing to ensure civil or social equality.
‘In thus alluding to political machinery which exists in some parts of Africa we wish to draw attention to the fact that democracy is not an exclusively European invention. In parts of West Africa for example, the Chief of whatever rank, is straitly bound by tradition to do nothing save in consultation with his councillors; and no councillor can give his counsel save after consulting with those below him. Thus the machinery for ensuring that the government acts in conformity with the general will is extremely effective. It often is the case that any citizen can enter the Chief’s house and consult him; so much so that many Africans find it hard to understand how it is possible for a Londoner to live for years without seeing, much less speaking to the king. Again, the tradition in some parts of Africa by which a minority is not overborne in noisy protest but is bound to give willing concurrence and active co-operation in carrying out the majority view might be regarded as more truly democratic than the clumsy European method of counting votes. These democratic traditions do not exist everywhere. But where they exist, it would be pedantic and unwise to attempt to discard them and substitute European or American political machinery’.
Additionally, in discussing the matter of education under the sub-heading. ‘‘Education for citizenship must take account of cultural differences’’, the Report stated that, ‘…it follows that education for citizenship must take account of the social customs and institutions in native society. The obvious example is the tribal system, where one exists. Whatever the force and the value of examples drawn from modern Britain or ancient Athens, it seems on the face of it that education in Africa will lose much if it concentrates on the Cabinet or the Ecclesia and forgets the village council, which existed in Africa or in Alfred’s England as it exists in Ashanti to-day.
We feel this point the more important because we are impressed by the evidence that exists of the vitality and the future possibilities of some African political institutions. We have had testimony from the Gold Coast and from Northern Rhodesia of the essentially constitutional authority of the chiefs, and of the respect – if indeed a stronger word would not be appropriate – with which they and the whole traditional system are regarded, even by sections of the African people which Europeans observers are sometimes apt to regard as ‘detribalised’. We feel that a political system such as that of the Akan – exemplified in Ashanti – contains elements of the highest value, and it would be folly to neglect or disregard it. We may make the point here, to return to it later, that the very fact that indigenous political institutions of high value are still existing, in contrast with the disintegrating tendencies of Western civilisation, renders it a matter of the greatest urgency that the Colonial peoples concerned should be educated to appreciate the instability of the situation and to control the future development of their own political institutions.
‘The Report further reveals that, ‘In this period of rapid transition, education becomes of greater importance and urgency than ever before, and must aim at fulfilling the special needs created by the social and political changes…….it is a question of improving the education provided so as to give a conscious preparation for citizenship, of passing on to the Colonial peoples as much as may be possible of our own political experience, in order that government of the Colonial peoples by the people and for the people may be a real thing. The advance towards political freedom will not and must not be delayed. But if political freedom is to benefit all the people and not merely the favoured few, then all the people must be guided to use it for the common good. This is the task of education. The Colonial peoples in their new political freedom must gain their own experience; but they have a right to look to us for guidance.
‘The aim may be the same for all Colonial peoples; but the Colonies vary so greatly in culture, in social and economic conditions, that the path towards it can be the same for all…..
The importance of these wide differences is that, if education is to be effective, it must be based partly at least on local foundations. This has been for many years one of the basic principles of British Colonial education policy….This is what British educationists in the Colonies have in mind when they utter the elliptical and often misunderstood statement that they wish the educated African, however highly educated, to remain African. They do not mean that they desire him to concentrate on his African culture to such an extent that he is unable to assimilate as much as he wishes of European culture’.
LOCAL SIGNALS
Another warning to the CPP political leaders about the need to blend education, development and culture to avoid unnecessary pitfalls to development was sounded right here in the Gold Coast, before the attainment of national independence.
In the Daily Graphic issue of May, 1955, at the time when agitations for political independence were riding high and Gold Coasters were tearing themselves apart for parochial considerations in winning political power, a sober and reflective mind in Rev Williamson of the University College of the Gold Coast, was aptly drawing their attention to danger signs, and asking the relevant question about our culture, ‘how can we retain the best of the old and find the best in the new?’ And the further question I ask is, ‘and how do we fuse the old and the new to advance and ensure sustainability in national development?
After decades of ignoring the admonishings listed above, this is how Professor Stephen Adei, former Rector of the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) describes the state of Ghana in his book, ‘Leadership and Nation Building’ , published speech of the 10th William Ofori-Atta Memorial Lectures, October 28-30, 2003, Accra. He made point that, ‘Thailand is unique among the Asian countries I have selected. It shows that even under conditions of frequent regime change, with traditionally stable institution, in their case the monarchy, a country can have the needed stability that allows development to take place’.
Professor Adei again emphasizes this point that, ‘effective national leaders everywhere, from Japan to Mauritius, take advantage of the experience of other nations, the advice of donors and the Breton Woods Institutions, but, in the end, develop their own unique strategies that reflect their historical and cultural perspectives. Development has technical foundations, but it also has socio-cultural dimensions such as consensus building, development of social capital, motivation of nationals to save and invest productively, etc, which are internally determined’.
Prof Adei again states that, ‘social cohesion has been sacrificed on the altar of partisan politics, ethnicity, cold war politics, personal greed and lust for power. This social deficit has not only weakened national cohesion but has engendered a lack of trust and left in its wake defective societies.
The situation is not akin to Ghana alone but in most of Africa. Prof Adei buttresses this assertion when he stated on page 81 that, ‘the vanguards of the liberation struggle failed miserably to deliver development. Many of them, despite their long stay in power, left their countries in political tatters, economic ruin, social conflict and cultural stagnation or deterioration’.
SINCE INDEPENDENCE.
The inability of the current local government system to respond enough to local challenges has been the bane of Ghana’s development: poor sanitation, growing poverty, increasing unemployment, dwindling crop production, increasing illegal mining, environmental degradation among others.
Ever since the independence government of Dr Kwame Nkrumah failed to place the cultural question to effectively engage the Chieftaincy institution in its proper context, subsequent governments have not seriously interrogated this matter. As such the nation has not fully considered the capacity of the chieftaincy institution in this country and the role it can play to effectively entrench decision making and participation at the grassroots. The benefits to have been derived by the country when decisions emanated effectively from the bottom to the top have been therefore lost. This is in spite of the policy to decentralize governance to the grassroots.
The 1992 constitution, after going to great lengths to entrench the Chieftaincy institution in Chapter 22 only ascribes the institution an unbefitting ceremonial role in a stand-alone structure.
It is quite illogical that chieftaincy, an institution for social cohesion and community mobilization, that is best suited for local governance has not been offered any role and function in that system. If indeed ‘charity begins at home’, and we need to domesticate and lay effective foundation for effective local governance, then that must be built on the time tested chieftaincy institution. The poor local government record upholds that, reengineering decentralization to be effective cannot and must not be done on the blind side of the social order structured and sustained around the chieftaincy institution over the centuries.
Already, the extended family system crumbling before our very eyes is exhibited in increasing crime, streetism, overcrowd of cases at the courts and inmates in the prisons. These are worrying warning signs confirming that, our social systems are declining and need effective reengineering. A strong and active Chieftaincy sector will curb the menace of street children, crime among others at cheaper cost to government.
Even though the Chieftaincy institution has been crudely marginalized over the last half-century, it is still robust and able to mobilize communities for development. There therefore seems to be no need for creation of parallel institutions in the quest to ensure an effective local governance system of unique and domesticated quality.
The opening lines in the 1992 constitution, Article 1, clause 1 states that, (1) ‘’The Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in this Constitution.
This ‘Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana’ is made up of me and you, who are mobilized here from our local areas, whose national collective is Ghana’’.
DEFINITION
Anyway, what is ‘local’? When we say ‘local’, what do we mean by that? ‘Local’ refers to our INDIGENOUS, very immediate environment composed of neighbors and community. And this ‘local’ is defined, identified and controlled/governed by Chiefs or clan heads. This being true, can we define ‘local governance’ as a system of control without reference to the traditional indigenous authority? The Constitution failed to acknowledge this fact.
Under Act 462, the blue print for decentralization, the Unit Committee represents the basic structure from where community development is expected to take off. This therefore confirms that before the advent of the Unit Committee, this was the traditional role of Chiefs in leading development in communities.
The Unit Committee system therefore, from the onset, was an arrangement parallel to the chieftaincy institution which is grounded from the family level through the clans and mobilized at the community level. But it is at the community level that the Unit Committee competes as a parallel institution to chieftaincy. It therefore lacks the depth, clout and capacity to play the role it has been tasked to do.
Today, over twenty years of practicing decentralization, the realities have emerged: unit committees, which were created, as it were, to perform the functions hitherto practiced by chiefs are literally ‘DEAD’. Since Unit Committees are literally ‘dead’, what links the communities to Assembly persons? The Electoral Commission complained about the disinterest of our people to represent about 10,000 unit committees across the country during the 2010 District Assembly and Unit Committee elections. This raises the question as to whom the assemblymen consult and report decisions taken at the assembly meetings to.
Additionally one might wonder how information could be passed from central government to the grassroots without the unit committees. Because of this institutional paralysis, there are often conflicts at the community level further deepening the incidences of poverty.
Meanwhile, the assemblymen and unit committees are recent innovations and subject to change whereas the Chieftaincy institution is time-tested and permanent.
b) OF CLOUT AND RELEVANCE
While citizens of any social standing are most likely to respond to the call of his Chief and carry out various assignments as proud volunteers; the same cannot be said of the unit committee. Thus, according Chieftaincy its rightful place in local governance can bring the needed human resource into the decentralization system.
Ghana’s 1992 constitution in Chapter twenty two, Chieftaincy, article 270 (1) states, ‘The institution of Chieftaincy, together with its traditional councils as established by customary law and usage, is hereby guaranteed’.
This definition lumps up recognition of the local community Chiefs joined up to form ‘traditional councils’ and ultimately paramountcies.
Chapter twenty on Decentralisation and Local Government, article 240 (c) states, ‘there shall be established for each local government unit a sound financial base with adequate and reliable sources of revenue;
(e) To ensure the accountability of local government authorities, people in particular local government areas shall, as far as practicable, be afforded the opportunity to participate effectively in their governance.
The constitution guarantees the Chieftaincy institution as a credible local governance structure and offers some functions to it. But chieftaincy is not that simple.
The combative posture inherited from the independence struggle between politicians and the chieftaincy institution was carried to bear on this 1992 constitution. But the strength and relevance of the institution is so overriding that, the framers of the constitution could not ignore it but made it a guaranteed position within the national polity. But the bias was visited on the institution by trying to clip its wings from doing what chieftaincy does best, and for which the fears of the framers were incensed: chieftaincy’s strong social and cultural mobilization ambit.
d) CHIEFTAINCY APOLOGIES
For those who only ascribe negativity to chieftaincy and call for its abolishing, I wish to liberate their own minds from the ‘OPAQUE BOX SYNDROME’ and interrogate the place and relevance of the institution. They accuse the institution of fanning conflict and chiefs selling lands. Conflicts are part of the human institution because of competing ends we are faced with everyday. This is not peculiar with the chieftaincy institution alone. I think these apologists will agree that they are in conflict with their spouses quite often. On the other hand, if land were not sold, the same people would accuse chiefs of holding on to lands to the detriment of development.
Deviants within Chieftaincy represent the mirror of the society from which chiefs as individuals, are raised from. That is just as we have politicians, clergy, lawyers, journalists, doctors, nurses; in fact, the whole Ghanaian society is bedeviled with.
Any effective and functioning society does not run away from its problems, but thinks through to fix them. If there are problems with Chieftaincy, let us place them in context and deal with them. For those who dream of abolishing Chieftaincy, it is a thought of naivety since that will create more problems than solutions. Have they ever imagined the number of social, political and security flames the institution curtails each day, week, month or year? I can assure them that this nation would have been in flames long ago without Chiefs.
Many succession conflicts to stools and skins can easily be traced to the Nkrumah era when his administration tried to politicize the chieftaincy institution to accord him absolute sway in power and authority. Unfortunately we have not recovered from that bias as we have, as a nation, never sat back to analyse the significance of the institution to our socio-political, economic and cultural development.
e) CONTRADICTIONS
Chieftaincy is all about people; their culture, their way of life. Chieftaincy provides leadership, hope, belongingness, development, identity, self-worth, self-esteem, commitment and drive to a people.
Development is about people. Thus chieftaincy and development are synonymous. Thus any development effort that seeks to play chieftaincy to the background does at its own risk.
Unfortunately, our 1992 constitution is anachronistic on this issue. The same constitution, under decentralization denigrates chieftaincy as non-consequential to local governance. Why this contradiction? And what do we see local governance as? In other words, what do we define as local governance? Where do we place the chieftaincy institution as the ambit of local administration in local governance? In other words, between the chief and the unit committee, which has the greater capacity to mobilize the people for sustainable development?
Today, the main base of local governance which is the unit committee has largely collapsed but chieftaincy, even though it has lost some of its potency, is vibrant because it has emanated from the very roots of the people over decades and centuries.
In designing the local governance system, it appears that enough analysis of the socio-cultural dynamics of the Ghanaian socio-political structure at the grassroots level was not taken into consideration. Chieftaincy has its basic units starting from the individual in the nuclear family, through the extended family units, to the clans. The amalgam of the clans submit to the stools at the community level in the Chief. And it is Clan heads who emerge into the Council of Elders of the Chief.
The dynamics and practicality of this structure is loudly ignored in our local government system. Unit Committees are therefore foisted on the people at the community level. Thus a turf war had been ignited.
The weak and weakening local governance system as currently demonstrated by the dwindling people’s participation and poor human resource base, must be lessons that have been learnt and we need to refocus on the units to enable us achieve and benefit from decentralization within our unique Ghanaian context.
But if I may ask, ‘why are we so quick to dispense of or try to do away with things of our own and to replace them with foreign and poorly researched and adapted policies, systems, institutions, materials etc.
When shall we wean ourselves from this ‘OPAQUE BOX SYNDROME’ with its attendant ‘ILLUSIONS’?
Do we not have any sincerity of pride to craft our own national and local governance systems that are unique to our socio-cultural realities and circumstances from which we will take pride and satisfaction? For how long do we have to suffer this ‘OPAQUE BOX SYNDROME’ by describing our democracy as American/British hybrid?
When shall we stop this hypocrisy of claiming ‘local content’ in deals with foreign companies while excluding ourselves and our own from governance?
While not denying those trying to practice ‘socialism’ in Ghana, I just want to caution that it ought to be domesticated and well thought through because the system as practiced outside is different and since the collapse in the 1990s, socialism has not shown any significant signs of recovery. For now, you have created so much distortions and confusion within the governance system. This is because they introduced ‘class socialism’ to distort and disrupt’ our God-given ‘communal socialism’ and we are paying the consequences painfully for this. The injustice is that, the perpetrators do not feel the brunt of the harm caused so far. It is thus very clear to me as a keen watcher that, the local government and decentralization as it operates in the Constitution is tailored to support a particular parochial interest. We can all never be equal even if we all had equal opportunities; we all have 24 hours a day but do not benefit from it at any equal level each day.
i) Fuse unit committees into the council of elders of chiefs/queen mothers
Chieftaincy is an inherited, adapted, time-tested and accepted institution with its authority and trappings; but the Unit Committee is an elective position. Those elected to unit committee positions are subjects and participants within the traditional authority system. To establish a harmonious and healthy development platform at the community level, Chieftaincy and the unit committee structure must be fused at the local community level.
Any local government system must have the capacity to mobilize and engage all the people as much as possible.
As a result, elect unit committee members of five persons, to be promoted onto the Council of Elders of the Chief/Queen mother every four years. Provide guidelines to regulate and manage the system for enhanced engagement, transparency and accountability.
ii) BENEFITS:
a) Local government will receive greater acceptability and participation, improved human resource and capacity because local structures will no longer be weak and in conflict.
b) Documentation of community events, cultural and developmental will be enhanced.
c) All segments of the community will be fired on to participate in development efforts.
d) The aura of the chieftaincy institution will be fused with central authority to offer greater participation, supervision and monitoring.
e) This new system can generate revenue to carry out its mandate without too much expectation and reliance on the central government.
f) The citizens can demand greater accountability from the chieftaincy institution.
g) The chieftaincy institution will become more active other than adopting the current ‘lay back’ stance because they feel ‘their powers have been taken’ from them.
The nation Ghana can best be managed if the community base is strong and effective. The following functions can be assigned the fused local governance unit to enhance development, control crime and save on national resource use.
a) CHIEFTAINCY AND SECURITY
Today, the police are overwhelmed with crime, because the police and the Judiciary are inundated with numerous cases they cannot easily and adequately dispose of, and the prisons have over 67% of inmates as remand prisoners. Ghana whose motto is ‘Freedom and Justice’ is exacting injustice on its own citizens by relegating the time tested and generationally, relevant Chieftaincy institution to the background, from playing significant, well structured and defined roles within the local governance structure.
At the unit level, the people identify with Chieftaincy more than the Unit Committees. People are more interested in arbitration because it is less costly and all embracing.
People are more ready to report miscreants to Chiefs than to the Unit Committee and the Police put together.
Indeed people show innate resentment in providing classified information to the Police or the Unit Committees, than to the chief that they easily identify with. This is because most people have been weaned on the social and traditional order of chieftaincy, beginning from the nuclear family level.
Indeed acrimony between feuding factions are not deep if a case is settled in the arbitration of the chief as against reporting one to the police or summoning one in court. The later have contributed a lot to the breakdown of the nuclear social safety net in relationships.
Strangers into any community are detected and noted at the chief’s palace by the social norms and rules that exist, and the background of the stranger sought before he or she is allowed to stay on in the community. That stranger is mandated to be ‘fathered’ by an indigene or local man, of good and responsible social standing before allowed to settle in a given community.
The average Ghanaian is far more ready to report a case at the chief’s court other than to go to a policeman.
b) THE POLICE
The Police are deficient in numbers, ill-equipped and sparsely dotted around the country. Many people mistrust the police because they perceive the institution as alien oppressors and its personnel as mainly untruthful and corrupt.
Indeed while a whole community can conspire not to give up an offender to the Police, they are more ready to report such to the Chief and his elders. Reports to the police are costly, time-consuming, unpredictable and frightening.
It must be noted that Chiefs pick intelligence information quicker and effortlessly than the Police. Thus mutually recognized measures will inure to national security other than the current colonial legacy.
c) THE JUDICIARY
Law cannot control society if it does not satisfy fundamental social needs for both stability and change (Roscoe Pound, former Dean of Harvard School of Law).
Indeed, the 1993 Law Report opens with the statement that, ‘the courts must promote peace’.
However, in reality, the courts by structure, procedure and acts, have added to fuelling of civil strife, huge financial burdens and break down of the social structure. This is because most cases are more determined on technical grounds other than within the socio-cultural contexts that bind the people.
Less than 20% of the people have access to justice due to cost, distance, medium of communication, lack of knowledge about the court system which is elitist. And these fuel corruption in the system.
IT IS nauseating to witness poor people scratch the ground to mobilize huge legal fees in pursuit of justice, it is as if justice is for sale. The numerous petty cases pending cases and court actions must be viewed in the larger light of national development: the more time spent on court cases result in the loss of huge man-hours to litigation other than productivity.
The national interest must aim at freeing more time for people to use on productivity. That is why all state institutions must ensure that undue delays and red-tapeism are avoided as far as possible.
d) RECOMMENDATION
The fused local government unit, under the Chief, must be given powers to take control of the security of their communities in collaboration with the police and judiciary. The community police system must be restored and adjudicating of specified cases assigned to Chiefs.
e) BENEFITS
Greater cooperation between the police and the judiciary to be enhanced
i) Crime control will increase as preemptive actions will nib crime cases in the bud.
ii) Additional jobs will be created.
iii) The people will be more involved in ensuring and cooperating in their own security.
iv) Remand cases in the prisons will reduce and freedom and justice will be seen to be done to the citizenry.
v) Incidences of corruption will reduce.
vi) Justice will be delivered more speedily.
vii) Cost of seeking justice will reduce.
4) MONITORING OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Community monitoring of government projects is weak because the sub-structures of the District Assemblies expected to play this role are weak and therefore ineffective.
Contractors, consultants and government staff know this and hardly involve the people in the execution monitoring of the projects. The situation will change if Chiefs are mandated to play this role in local governance. This will immediately strengthen the monitoring capacity at the community level for enhanced accountability.
The new arrangement will give better meaning and impetus to revenue mobilization and collection. A formula will need to be developed for the revenue to be shared. Under this new arrangement, accountability is expected to improve beyond what exists now.
6) THE NEW ROLE FOR CHIEFS IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE
(i) For effective decentralization and good local governance, the Chieftaincy Institution as a matter of national urgency must be redefined to include the chieftaincy institution.
(ii) That the Unit Committee must be fused into the Chieftaincy system at the community level. Five Unit Committee members elected to join the Council of Elders of the Chief every 4 years.
(iii) All cases that are not criminal, except petty thievery, may be settled at the arbitration of the Chief. Recalcitrant persons must, after trying all the local settlement procedures be handed to the police from the court of the Chief for subsequent actions.
(4) the Police and Chiefs can co-operate better to expunge criminal elements from society.
7) CHIEFTAINCY How can we achieve self-reliance, self-worth, self-esteem and the spirit of nationalism when the very institution that represents and captures our values, value systems and our identity is run as an alien institution to our very being? How can we build a nation without a foundation? The foundation that has shaped and continues to determine our social structure for mobilization and development? How can chieftaincy be the custodian of our culture when we offer half-hearted support to the institution as secondary to our development?
The very fact that we believe chieftaincy cannot play, and must not play an active role in local governance is the very reason that establishes that we have rejected ourselves and lack the capacity to accept ourselves, and therefore cannot shape development strategies that are relevant to our own advancement.
The very fact that we talk about a fused system of America and British democratic systems, and not about our own, confirms the extent to which we have rejected ourselves but boast about the achievements of others.
This project is a bold attempt to redefine and rediscover ourselves as Ghanaians with our unique and God-given abilities and capabilities for rapid decentralization and development. It is in this quest that we invite you to join us in this onerous task of nation building.
The Zonal, Urban and Area Councils as currently established must be fused with paramount chiefs where appropriate. Once the unit base is strong, it will be capable of carrying the superstructure.
ABOVE ALL
The Back to Roots project must be made an integral part of national development. It is only then that we can understand and appreciate our foundational challenges to statehood; challenges that have created monstrous hydra-headed hiccups to the attainment of sustainable development.
A lot more can be achieved if a serious national discourse is ignited on the issues around local government, decentralization and Chieftaincy in a non-partisan atmosphere.