Rejoinder: Mary Chinery-Hesse and the Intellectuals

In his article, ‘Mary Chinery-Hesse and the Intellectuals’ (Ghanaweb August 3, 2007), Kofi Akosah Sarpong wrongly assumes that Mrs. Chinery-Hesse provides advise to the president of Ghana devoid of reference to African ‘values and norms’! I do not know how Kofi reaches such a conclusion regarding the culture-induced content of the advise provided to the president by the presidential advisor. In his writings on traditional African values, Akosah Sarpong makes clear his interest in Africans (Ghana) returning to some pristine traditional cultural milieu to underpin the political arrangements of the modern nation-state.

To buttress his argument, he cites one author who claims ‘Botswana has prospered, for the past 25 years running, by its skillful ability to successfully appropriate its norms, values and traditional institutions in policy-making, bureaucratizing, consultancies, thinking and philosophizing about the country’s progress’.

But Botswana is nearly a unitary-tribal, nation-state where the majority of the people think alike in terms of history; ethnic affiliation; traditions; and customs. Whatever differences they may have therefore informs and strengthens the system rather than weakening and undermining the system as happens in other multi-ethnic states in Africa. It is therefore easy to perceive Botswana as a NATION with a common culture. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Ghana and other African states that the author you refer to makes.

Further, if Mrs. Mary Chinery Hesse, who by the way is one of our most eminent bureaucrats with a sterling record, is professionally giving any advise to the president given her background in Ghanaian and international affairs, she must be aware of the Botswana situation; and even more acutely aware that Ghana is not Botswana! Beware of Western writers who cannot decipher the trees from the forest. One cannot compare Botswana to Ghana or Nigeria in terms of using traditional culture to delineate political development.

Let me compare Botswana and Asante for the simple reason of convenience, not one of tribal triumphalism; and to underscore that while you may be correct about the fact that Botswana has ‘national’ norms, it is misleading to extrapolate what obtains in Botswana onto a multi-ethnic nation-state like Ghana or Nigeria. Also, Asante traditional political development is usually cited as appropriate by scholars of Political Development Theory such as Samuel P. Huttington.

The epicenter of Botswana cultural-traditional politics is similar to that of Asante. In Botswana (the majority Batswana) have a Kgosi who is a hereditary traditional leader of a clan or village. There is what amounts to a parliament called the Kgotla, which is the unique institution in the Kgosi's administration, at the centre of which is the Royal Kgotla, an assembly at which tribal issues are discussed and major decisions taken. It is the seat of traditional government and a forum for free exchange of views in a village democratic system. A Kgosi calls a meeting of the kgotla whenever there are important matters to be discussed and decisions taken. On a regular basis, the kgotla is used as a court where cases are heard, and also serves as an administrative centre to determine property rights, and consult on general village community projects.

The equivalent in Ghana, is the Asanteman Nhyiamu or the Asante Parliament which was first convened in 1701 to discuss the formation of the Asante Confederacy, and to witness the descent of the Sikadwa (Golden Stool) from heaven. This event cemented Asante unity with a common history; tradition; custom; values; and political hierarchy! It has met regularly since 1701 and sought to formulate Asante national development until 1946 when the Burns Constitution unified the administration of the Gold Coast Colony, thereby making the Crown Colony of Asante fully administrative part of the British colony of Gold Coast.

I am sure you read on Ghanaweb, the same day your article appeared (Agust 3, 2007) regarding an incident involving a local chief and his irate youth, before a meeting of the Kumasi Traditional Council. Each Asante division has its own parliament. And issues of national importance; or issues that cannot be settled by these sub-parliaments are referred to the Asanteman Nhyiamu for adjudication. Unlike Botswana, any attempt to extrapolate Asante custom, values, norms, cultural panoply, etc., onto Ghana will be met with fierce opposition. A new national political culture must be allowed to evolve to underpin the new nation called Ghana.

Nations are formed when the tribe that is successful in war and politics imposes its jurisdiction and values on the rest of the people. This is how all the Europeans nations came into being. Such was the havoc in Europe over wars in pursuit of nationhood that the Treaty of Westphalia 1648 was signed to essentially enforce the legal sovereign state principle in Europe. The treaty did not end imperial wars in Europe, but at least from then on each nation understood its legal territorial boundaries and limits!

Similar steps to state formation were not completed in Africa because outside foreign interests interfered in the process and intervened with their own imperial plans. The conquest in our part of the world (modern Ghana) was done by an outside tribe called England (or Great Britain!) NOTE THAT THE ENGLISH TRIBE HAD CONQUERED AND BROUGHT THE SCOT TRIBE AND THE WELSH TRIBE UNDER THEIR RULE WITH A NEW NAME CALLED UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND (sometimes) IRELAND!!

Though the Scots (especially) and the Welsh still seek some independence which they call ‘devolution’ from Westminster, there has been successful social engineering on the tribes of the United Kingdom so that they tend to think of themselves as British. The former prime minister of Britain Tony Blair was of the Scottish tribe. His successor Gordon Brown is from the same tribe. Yet one does not see the English and the Welsh up-in-arms over Scottish domination, as would be the case in an African country. The anger and frustration on England is usually vented during football matches where curiously the nation of Great Britain could potentially field four ‘national teams’ (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), in European and World Cup competitions!

The modus operandi of every imperial nation over the conquered people is divide and rule; and the British did that with distinction in Ghana. The idea of a Ghana nation is therefore of the most recent in memory. And the creator did so with mercenary intentions. While the British sought to instal a new political culture, their efforts were undermined by their own racist notions and their sense of racial superiority. Therefore the political culture which had worked for the British in their own country became anachronistic to the Africans because the latter was not viewed as equal partners by the conquerors and was not consulted in the decision-making process; no matter the education wealth, or social stature of the African.

In a sense therefore, the colonial political structure (colonial-style parliaments and political parties), introduced by the British and other colonialists in Africa was essentially dictatorial and authoritarian in nature. Opponents of the system were beaten up and thrown into prisons. This is the political culture that was bequeathed to Africans at independence. This authoritarian political culture was exacerbated by our tribal competition for the spoils of the independence victory. Rather than uniting us, the new political culture tended to be wholly divisive. Rather than working together, we tended to work against each other!

The norms and values which you identify in Botswana can be easily identified in Ghana and other African countries as well. But these norms and values are scattered over hundreds of tribes in competition against each other. If we do not share similar values, it is difficult to come to agreement on fundamental issues.

What Ghana and Africa need today is therefore the growth of a new political culture to unite us and create a new national ethos. We must marry our diversified local traditional norms with those values that meet current international norms. These values include tolerance for each other’s opinions and views in the political arena; equitable distribution of national development (after all, the elders advise that he who is not invited to share the family meal remains an angry person and a threat to good order!); the respect for the rule of law; and collective insistence on political and financial accountability by those whom we have entrusted to supervise national affairs.

There is hardly a group in Ghana which tolerated misrule by their King or Chief in the pre-colonial era. The Asante for example overthrew four of their Kings, one of them Otumfuo Kofi Kaakari was kicked out for raiding the national treasury and also for taking the nation into a war for which Asante was ill-prepared. Our collective traditions therefore required good governance and financial probity from our rulers. Ghanaians must also build on our tradition of being outspoken against tyranny and corruption.

The phrase “Okyeame I beg to say”..., is a refrain often used as a prefix to a brave statement in Chiefs’ palaces when the speaker is galvanized by a sense of national duty to bring out issues which others are afraid to speak of, but is crucial to the national well-being. For example, why should people remain silent over what would be considered flagrant exhibition of wealth by a politician who suddenly becomes rich; educates his children abroad; and acquires numerous properties beyond what is possible giving his circumstances. Our ancestors would have not tolerated misuse of public money!

There is much to commend in our traditional cultures. But any insistence that we must return to those values exclusively as the road map to our political freedom today, is misleading and simplistic. Nor can we recommend what has been successful in a small unitary tribal state to others with more diversified ethnic groups and cultures.

In conclusion, as the United States of America has shown, people from different tribes and religion can comfortably be wedded into a new national idea by virtue of a new political culture with accountability, good governance, rule of law, respect for property rights, etc. This is the task facing Ghana and Africa. And this is the new path Ghana has chosen since 1992 with our collective decision to say YES to democracy and good values which our ancestors would have been proud of.

There may be imperfections along the way, but we must succeed. To this end we must be eternally watchful of sanctimonious preachers of competing gospel who might wish to take advantage of our struggling baby-steps being taken towards the attainment of this new culture After all, the USA began as imperfect example of the exploitation of man by man by denying the humanity of Africans in their midst whom the American Founding Fathers conveniently shoved aside by declaring the Africans as ‘three fifths’ human! Today, one who would have been so counted, is running for the president of the United States of America. Kumase was not built in a day!!!

Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.