Unnecessary Attacks on Chieftaincy (Part 2)

« Prev

Comments (0)

Listen to Article

Nii Lantey Okunka Bannerman initiated a discussion on chieftaincy on November 20, 2007. He has never hidden his distaste for chieftaincy so I was not surprised when he went “ballistic” on that institution. Like Nana Amma, he made many unnecessary attacks on chieftaincy. He started by saying that, “The idea of having one tribe occupy a particular portion of Ghana till infinity is not evolutionally sustainable and conducive to the growth and progress of a united Ghana. It must surely change now!” I disagree with him on the grounds that the places individual Ghanaians live is based more on birthplace rather than ethnicity. Ghanaians move around freely so nothing, at least not chieftaincy, limits the movement and location of Ghanaians. In Kumasi, for example, there is an Anlo-town and in almost every Ghanaian town there is a “zongo”.

When Nii charged that “The debilitating impact of chieftaincy on the daily lives of Ghanaians cannot be trivialized,” I expected him to give examples of such debilitating impacts, but he failed to do so. The closest he came to giving an example was “Most Ghanaians would rather mind their business instead of being saddled with what some privileged and snotty royals care to do or say.” Definitely, he is right to say that most Ghanaians would rather mind their businesses. Can Nii or any Ghanaian tell me how chieftaincy is intruding upon their businesses? Let me put it differently, “In their daily lives, how many Ghanaians are affected by chieftaincy?”

According to Nii some people claim that chieftaincy equates our entire culture and therefore, we will cease to exist if it is abolished. I don’t know who he has been talking to because I don’t believe that anybody has said that we will cease to exist if chieftaincy is abolished. We should remember that only an insignificant number of Ghanaians are directly affected by chieftaincy. To illustrate his charge that Ghanaians will not cease to exist without chieftaincy he noted that the people of Anlo have been without an Awomefia for 10 years. According to him, in the course of these ten years, the Anlos went about their businesses and did not lose any aspect of their culture. In addition, he noted that when Prempeh I was shipped off to the Seychelles, the people of Asanteman survived with their culture intact and perhaps modernized for several years. He also mentioned that the Ga people did not have any chief for some years and duly survived. He reminded his readers that in all the above mentioned cases no one died because there was no chief in charge. Nii jubilated that those examples are indications that life will go on without chieftaincy.

If the above are the reasons to abolish chieftaincy then Nii has failed to impress his readers. This is because in all the examples he gave, the people concerned appointed custodians. Thus, no vacuum was created - chieftaincy went on even when no chiefs had been installed. As I mentioned earlier on, life will go on without chieftaincy. In fact, life will go on even without political government. Do we have to abolish political government for that reason?

Nii went on to make the same unfortunate accusation Nana Amma made earlier on. He said that without chieftaincy there would be no more ritual murders. When did ritual killing become synonymous to chieftaincy? How many chiefs have committed ritual killings in Ghana? Still attacking chieftaincy, he wrote that chiefs dupe people by selling the same land to multiple people. Yes, a few chiefs have sold the same land to multiple people but that does not mean most chiefs do that. In fact, individual Ghanaians are more likely to be guilty of dubious land sales than chiefs are.

Nii rightly wrote that tribal (ethnic) leadership lost its luster, bluster and allure once the bells of independence tolled. He went on to write that our emphasis should be more on our nationality instead of our tribe. By implication, he is saying that if we abolish chieftaincy tribalism would cease. Thus, people will see themselves as Ghanaians rather than Asante, Ewe, Dagomba, Krobo, etc. I really don’t think that is correct. Kenyans, for example, still see themselves as Maasai, Luo, Kikuyu, Luyia, etc, despite the fact that they don’t have chieftaincy as we do. According to Nii, chieftaincy is not receptive to change. Again, that is not true. Scholars of chieftaincy will testify that the institution has undergone tremendous modifications. Actually, in various ways Nana Amma even attacked chiefs for embracing modernity/change.

Asantehene was attacked by Nii just as Nana Amma did. He wrote that in a recent speech in Germany, the Asantehene did not waste time jumping at the throat of those who want change, by telling them that they have no confidence in their African-ness. Yes, the Asantehene said we have lost confidence in our African-ness; according to Nii, the Asantehene meant that those who call for change have lost faith in their own systems, systems that continue to fail them. This is a very convenient way for Nii to interpret what the Asantehene said. Isn’t it true that many of us prefer foreign food to Ghanaian food? Isn’t it true that some of us are ashamed of Ghanaian names? Isn’t it true that many Ghanaians prefer Chinese herbs to Ghanaian herbs? From my perspective, these are some of the issues the Asantehene was referring to.

In a sarcastic way, Nii noted that the Asantehene plays golf. He went on to write that the Asantehene wears suits, has a cell phone and all the modern frills befitting his status. For Nii, it is wrong for a chief to own a cell phone, play golf, etc. By implication, Nii is saying that Chiefs should not embrace anything modern. And they should not enjoy pleasures of modern times! It is surprising that this comes from an individual who is calling for at least changes/modernization in chieftaincy.

Still on Asantehene, Nii criticized him for allowing his wife to give birth to a baby in the US. He does not understand why the wife of Asantehene, to use his words, bypassed the great Okomfo Anokye Hospital on her way to the US to give birth to her baby. The last time I checked, Okomfo Anokye Hospital belonged to the Government of Ghana; it has nothing to do with chieftaincy. According to Nii, the wife of Asantehene giving birth to her baby in the US rather than at Okomfo Anokye Hospital will give the people of Kumasi the impression that it is safer to have kids in overseas hospitals. Does Nii really believe that Ghanaians don’t know that the US and other such countries have better healthcare facilities than we have in Ghana? Lack of facilities in our hospitals should be squarely blamed on the politicians, not on chieftaincy. Miraculously, he even connected the awards of contracts to the Chinese and Indians to chieftaincy. What has chieftaincy got to do with the awards of contracts to Chinese and Indians?

When Nii asked whether it is not ironic that we have the temerity to classify others as uncultured but turn around to beg for food and money from them, I shivered. He went on to ask whether we have not begged enough from those we consider uncultured. First, who ever said Europeans and others are uncultured? Second, isn’t it the politicians who go abroad begging? What has the begging behavior of politicians got to do with chieftaincy?

So far, nobody has come out with any concrete steps/suggestions about how chieftaincy should be modified, let alone how it should be abolished.

What are the changes suggested by Nii? He wrote that the key change would be to open the institution up to all who care to lead and have the experience and potential. I’m not convinced that chieftaincy would be better off if chiefs are elected instead of selected through royal families. If that is the case, then parliamentary politics should fare better in Ghana than it is currently faring. Chieftaincy in Ghana, like any other institution, will die a natural death when Ghanaians don’t see its importance. It is safer to allow that trend to take its course, if that’s what is bound to happen.