Chieftaincy’s natural power and capacity to lead local development have been grossly underrated, and it is time to address that constitutionally.
For accelerated local development, there is an urgent need to reverse the constitutional usurpation of that local development role which it assigns to local government.
Article 245(a) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution mandates a decentralised system of local government and administration to drive local development.
So far, the article has underperformed in implementation such that the Constitution Review Committee (CRC) seeks its review in an “all development is local” approach.
To fix the local development deficit, CRC recommends “introducing direct elections for local government chief executives (MMDCEs),” instead of currently being appointed; together with the establishment of an Independent Devolution Commission (IDC) to intensify decentralisation and invigorate local development authority.
That sets a task for the Constitution Review Implementation Committee (CRIC) to enact constitutional intervention to remedy the little development at the local level which tends to slow national development.
For that transformative local governance for accelerated local development, chieftaincy (as in occupiers of skins and stools) stands ready for consideration by CRIC as the logical apparatus.
Even so, item 12 (electing MMDCEs) of the 13 points of action by CRIC seems far less capable of addressing that task of an article of local empowerment for local development as “fapem” (bedrock) of national development.
Yet, dare one mention chieftaincy as the more viable agency for accelerated local development, and an initial reaction will likely be that it is too divisive and less uniting over succession issues to champion development.
Fact, though, is that the negative of chieftaincy as a source of conflict is overblown, while the institution’s massive potential as an agent for local development is woefully underrated.
A constitution is made to last, but it must first tackle the now issues. They say “72 per cent of Ghanaian youth have considered leaving the country” for lack of employment opportunities.
Tertiary students and graduates are actively involved in galamsey.
The National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) attributes the syndrome of abandoned projects to “political discontinuity” and “lack of legal enforcement.”
And despite legislation, public procurement abuse is widespread. As macro issues as they might be, they have implications for local development.
Historically
Historically, though, Biadanhene (chief) Nana Kwasi Ansu in the Berekum Traditional Area led his people to provide themselves with real development.
Within two short years in the 1950s, the chiefdom provided itself with pipe-borne water and a community centre with a day nursery annexed building complex.
A farm trail was upgraded to a motorable road, and a generating plant was procured to supply electricity. Such micro activity can serve as the foundation for national development.
These days, from the village head (adikrofoɔ) through subchiefs (abrempɔn) to paramount chiefs (amanhene) all the way to the Asantehene, chiefs are still able to utilise their paltry traditionally decentralised authority to develop their areas.
They mobilise to provide health and education facilities, social amenities and infrastructure to stimulate economic activity for the development of their chiefdoms.
Just imagine what chieftaincy can do with its authority boosted by the constitution.
Basically, chieftaincy is “democratic government to a degree of which there is not any modern parallel in Europe,” with decentralisation as “one of its outstanding characteristics.”
It is centripetally bottom-up and, therefore, naturally sensitive to local development.
Chieftaincy democracy develops where “election democracy” may not.
Thus, the institution deserves the restoration of its authority to develop, which is constitutionally usurped in local government with the 1992 Constitution.
At each level of the chieftaincy hierarchy, the leader/chief is sufficiently empowered and reasonably resourced with the autonomy and power to mobilise to develop the jurisdiction/chiefdom; no dependence on the centre to decentralise/devolve/disburse authority or resources before initiating, planning and implementing local development.
Traditional leaders are more knowledgeable, have richer lived life experiences and, by that, are better prepared as development leaders than the political class.
The former are empowered and compelled by culture, tradition and customary practice to mobilise human and material (land) resources to improve the living conditions of their people.
And the institution’s gender inclusive queen mother role strengthens the active participation of women in the thinking and doing of local development that leads to national development.
Tools
Among the tools available to the chief for the mobilisation and execution of a local development agenda are the network of vertical sub-authorities in subchiefs, courtiers and other chiefly actors and the horizontal abusua (family/clan) groups with defined heads.
A chief also has the power to create nkɔsoɔ (development) and boafoɔ (helper) stool occupants to specifically spearhead development activity.
Also at his disposal are devices such as the ‘dawuro’ concept for effective communication. Some skins and stools own communication centres, radio stations, websites or are robustly present on various social media platforms.
Alternatively, whatever its strengths, the imported local government, as is practised now by Chapter 20 of the 1992 Constitution, is severely limited productively, satisfactorily and effectively as a replacement for chieftaincy in promoting development at the grassroots.
