Epistle 114 of chieftaincy, religion and politics
This is a very live issue in our social discourse, and it affects even our constitutional arrangements and conventions to a considerable degree. It used to be when we lived in unconstitutional regimes, to be a topic that got some of us angry, as chiefs we loved and respected hobnobbed with leaders we loved to hate and deride.
Advertisement
I must quickly add however, that some of the military leaders have seen hypocritical rehabilitation in our ongoing revisionism and narrative of our collective past.
The observant would notice that these sweeping remarks are limited only to the story of independent Ghana, because the role of chiefs in our political evolution into the nation state of Ghana cannot be so easily derided.
And so is that of identified religious leaders who achieved prominence by doing their bit in crafting the Ghana we have today. That history would make a place for Nana Ofori-Atta, just as Nana Kobina Nketsia and Nana Tsibu-Darko.
Link between chiefs, religious leaders and politicians
I am sure most of my readers are lost as to the real thrust of my column today, but this is basically an essay on the vexed question whether the unconsummated marriage between our traditional rulers or chiefs as we call them, our religious leaders, of all stripes, and our modern nation state politicians or rulers is valid and must be accepted by us as a fact of our lives in all relevant spheres.
Alternatively, are we being persuaded by recent attacks on this ongoing fact of our social and political lives, that such an otherwise profitable association and linkage must be broken, and each kept within its sphere?
The plain truth of the matter, violent and rabid protestations to the contrary, is that the relationship among all three is not necessarily mutually exclusive. Trying to separate them would be an exercise in constitutional, social and conventional futility. Their marriage is a fact of our national tapestry.
Seeking to unravel it is akin to destroying the cloth of unity in which we are all draped as one nation united and strong, and unique. I daresay their intertwined relationship is one that makes us Ghanaian.
Chiefs and politicians
Chiefs are political leaders. We have agreed, at a certain level of political fiction, to see them as non-political and/or non-partisan. Before formal colonisation in 1874, they were sovereign, that is, kings in the ethnic areas they ruled over. It was the colonial power that reduced them to chiefs without sovereign authority and superimposed their own form of secular power, creating a nation state out of the many chiefdoms they cobbled together to form the state of Ghana.
Yes, they are also ethnic leaders, or as we say in these parts, tribal leaders, looking out for the interests of their areas of jurisdiction as any responsible leader would do. Because our national politics takes a strong dose of tribalism as a necessary flavour, some of us have conveniently forgotten or refused to acknowledge the saliency of ethnicity in our politics. The winner of our political contests is simply the one who persuades the majority of our ethnic pre-colonial states to his side of the argument.
The linkage between our chiefs and our politicians is not one we can do away with, and call ourselves the products of our history. We don’t seem to have any problems with any politician praising any chief, it is the contrary which gets our attention. Why? The reason is obvious.
The introduction and avid practice of partisan politics in the political sphere in the modern state. The chief praising or extolling the virtues of a politician annoys us because the latter controls the national exchequer, and can direct expenditure and other goodies of secular power to benefit a particular chiefdom, just to perpetuate the rule of the party the politician represents.
It is even worse when the chief praises a politician he does not share ethnic affiliation with. But is such a negative reaction from some of us on the person and character of some of our chiefs worthy criticism, or powerless silliness?
Chief in modern times
The chief in the modern state has been shorn of his sovereign authority, deprived of his secular powers by the act of colonialism, and he is reduced to being a relic of our culture, which is fast altering before our very eyes, reducing his authority further, and we still complain when they have no real, physical power and resources to demand our obedience?
I am no monarchist, and do not hanker after the days when they were sovereign and overmighty rulers. I am a dyed-in-the-wool republican, believing passionately that political power and legitimacy must emanate from universal adult suffrage, not bloodlines, no matter how royal, or fraudulent the blood may be.
There are no kings in this country. In fact, our elected President even takes on chiefly titles as for example, Osagyefo, to cement our people to our past, that is, for those with a dose of monarchical tendencies in them.
Attitude to chieftaincy
I always maintain that the sole difference between our main parties today is their attitude to chieftaincy. The NDC is more secular and accepting of the modern state, while the NPP is enamoured of chieftaincy, but is loath to do the right thing constitutionally in line with their thinking, that is, hand over the powers of our politicians to our chiefs, or at least, give our chiefs the role they deserve in the constitutional arrangement.
It is instructive that no politician of either stripe has taken the word ‘’active’’ to the courts for interpretation so we know for certain a chief who praises a politician has crossed the line. Which line?
But there is one valid reason why chieftaincy is good for us, just as leading clergymen who dabble in our secular politics. They are a check on the secular politicians, and somehow, share the political space we have created solely for our politicians. For this reason, and this alone, anyone who believes in constitutional government, a government marked by structured checks and balances, must welcome the participation of our revered chiefs in our public life. We should not insult them.
