Culture, Chieftaincy, Progress or Chaos II
by E. Ofori Akyea
There is no doubt that the institution of Chieftaincy is an important pillar on which our society is built. The veneration that we accord the occupants and to the stools or skins transcend the pedestrian attitude that we accord other institutions that is indigenous in our societies. One would have thought that of all the buffeting that the chieftaincy institution has been subjected to it would by now have vanished or become a shadow of itself. The institution, however, continues to reinvent itself.
Indeed, in some other African societies the colonising powers managed to mangle the institution to such an extent as to either completely destroy it or turn it into an instrument of their own rule. In some places they euphemistically named the system “indirect rule” so that the people would not see the puppeteer’s hands manipulating the chiefs in doing all sorts of unimaginable things to their own kith and kin. It is, therefore not surprising that in many cases it was the chiefs that stood in the way of national independence. In one particular country the colonial government went to the extent of providing uniforms for the chiefs. Sadly, the national government that succeeded the colonial regime has rigidly kept up the practise. They have even “improved” the design of the uniform to make the chiefs look more like the clowns that that they were meant to look like in the first place.
For every rule there is an exception and the exception is said to prove the rule. Many chiefs stood against their colonialists. Such chiefs were imprisoned, exiled or simply done away with. We have a famous example of such a situation in our own country. Nana Prempeh I suffered the ire of the British colonial authorities and was exiled first to
Indeed, the term chief is a problematic one since the colonialists did not see any reason to create an authority that would put the native rulers at par with themselves. Sadly, such defiant and proud rulers like Prempeh were few and far between. The majority of the “rulers” were bootlickers or were nominated by the foreign invaders that a writer calls “predators” and imposed on the people. The foreigners backed up the local upstarts with superior firepower and cowed the local population into submission. These men of low calibre found their way into power over their own people through trickery and deceit.
The chief was and is indeed the ruler of a state. He had lesser chiefs under him and held court like a Head of State. This implied that he had diplomatic relations with neighbouring states. It was in this context that wars were waged. The causes of wars are varied and are well documented but in the end wars were waged to gain advantage, satisfy a royal ego, gain territory or some such reason. With the arrival of the foreigners some chiefs saw an opportunity to gain some advantage over ancient rivals.
The new arrivals also had their own plans which did not coincide with those of the local rulers. Conflicts arose and invariably the foreigners won as a result of the superior firepower that they had and often with the connivance of some of the local people who were doing this for their own selfish reasons.
Of course, times have changed. We live in countries whose borders transcend those of the traditional rulers. Our allegiances are of a different order. We need to think and indeed do think of ourselves as belonging to multicultural entities. These relationships are built upon those of ancient times and they keep evolving. It is, therefore, not true that before the coming of the white man our states did not have relations one with another. The history of migrations tells of many of these relations. Asantes had relations with Gonjas and Mamprusis, for example, as the Ewes have with the Ga people.
Even among the same larger groups there are interrelations that inform and define important behaviour. Again there are significant relations between the Ga Mashie and the La people because the chiefs are from the same families. We need, therefore, to be extremely careful when talking of exclusivity in superior narrow terms.
Be it as it may we are left with a vibrant evolving institution that some latter day troublemakers wish to turn to their advantage. People who have neither rights nor ancestral jurisdiction aspire to be called chiefs either because they have made money or their egos need massaging. Let me give a seemingly insignificant but important example of this. Traditionally only a chief wears certain beads on his right hand as a bracelet. These days one sees some young men sporting the beads as statements of their having arrived! Such behaviour cheapens our sacred traditions.
We have arrived at a point where we need to seriously streamline the succession to the chieftancy institution. Every traditional area in this country has rules about which families have a right to ascend to a stool or skin. There are also clearly laid out systems of succession. There are “gates” and clear rotation systems in place.
The kingmakers are the gatekeepers of the system. Once they are corrupted the system begins to totter. My experience of the system tells me that the temptations are many. You have a collection of old men who hardly have enough to eat every day. There comes along a character that dispenses his largess with reckless abandon. Each time he is in town it is party time. No one questions his source of wealth. Everyone whispers about his business dealings but who cares. Let the good time roll.
Add to this brew the modern day politician who is a specialist in promising the world in his or her quest for power. So long as we have the underdeveloped and the poor as those that decide the destiny of our traditional political system we shall continue to have problems. The local people need to be empowered to take care of their lives.
As part of the solution the development of our local government needs to be carefully calibrated. Some District Executive Officers (DCEs) seem to be wishing to have the chiefs toe their political lines. Chiefs as agents of local development are powerful agents. The chief by his position is supposed to be a neutral political agent. Also the people over whom he rules are an amalgam of all shades of the political opinions of his populace. The moment a group feels that he is leading them in a direction that they are not inclined to move the chief’s authority begins to be eroded. The erosion can also take place if the people perceive that the political authority is pressuring their chief to his or her tendency. The result is that there is non cooperation. Institutions become inoperative and dysfunctional and so underdevelopment persists.
It will be too easy to say that DCEs should keep their distance from the chief and his elders. There should be constructive engagement. The higher interests of the people should be paramount and not be sacrificed on the altar of sectional political interest or of an egoistical grandstanding.
My point is that the institution of chieftaincy continues to be important in our scheme of things. There is enormous emotional attachment to it. If it were not so it would not have continued to evince so much debate and interest. People continue to be ready to lay down their lives for it. We have a duty to look after it with all the seriousness and reverence that is required. In order to do this I have some suggestions to make.
First of all the much talked about register of chiefs need to be established as soon as possible. Like most things in this area it requires the political will to have it done. It should take less than six months to have the register in place. The other day I heard someone give an opinion that I consider most cynical dysfunctional. He gave examples of chiefs whose nominations and installations have raised controversies. He insisted that such initial controversies went with the territory and that with time they died down. We must avoid such situations at all costs.
The second thing to be done is to document the mode of succession of each chieftaincy. This action should include the gates or houses or clans or whatever nomenclature that they are known that have access to the stool or skin.
The third thing is that there should be spelled out some of the qualities and moral requirements that a chief should have. It is clear that a felon may not be a chief but should you exclude a circumcised person as is required by certain ethnic groups?
A fourth suggestion is that the role of the Queenmothers have to be redefined where they are applicable.
Additionally, in order to forestall possible underhand dealings a time limit ought to be set for the nomination and installation of chiefs. Usually when there is a time lag it creates the opportunity for some character to sneak in.
Above all politicians should see chiefs as agents of development and not as cheerleaders or recruitment agents into their political tendencies. The occupiers of the stools and skins should also preserve the dignity that their office requires. They are the embodiment of the best that our communities and people aspire to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment