Dualism in Local Governance: The Case of Chieftaincy and Local Government in Small Communities of Akyem Abuakwa State of Ghana

Abstract

One of the hallmarks of our rapidly evolving democratic culture as a nation has been the relentlessness with which we have subjected every social institution to scrutiny through open debate and discussion. Consistent with this culture of debate, there has been a flurry of criticisms and commentaries about the institution of Chieftaincy. Not surprisingly, no consensus on the relevance of the institution in the midst of a modern nation-state has so far been achieved. One side of the debate suggests that the institution is incompatible with modern forms of governance and must therefore be discarded. And, almost invariably, those who suggest that Chieftaincy should be abolished argue that the institution is hereditary and therefore undemocratic. The argument also runs that the institution has lost much of its original functions and that it fosters tribalism, conflict and classism, so to speak. The polar view asserts that traditional institutions are indispensable for political transformation in the country, as they represent a major part of the country’s history, culture, and governance system. This view favours the continued existence of chieftaincy because the institution is seen as playing key roles in the socio-political lives of the people. It is significant to note that juxtaposed with this chieftaincy institution is the sometimes parallel “modern State”, vested with enormous authority in rule making, application, adjudication and enforcement; thus creating political dualism in the country. This dualism transcends all levels – national, regional, district and village level politics – under the present Fourth Republic of Ghana. The issues have been, do these political institutions exist and function together or in isolation? Are there not interrelations between them? If there are, what are the nature and dynamics of the interrelations between these two separate leaderships as they exist and function alongside each other? Within the theoretical perspective of the interplay of tradition and modernity as it happens in every social change, this study looks at the possible diverse relations between the traditional rule and local government structures in some small communities (Apapam and Nkronso) in Akyem Abuakwa, with emphasis on the controversy over the relevance of chieftaincy to mainstream politics at the local level. In this regard, the broad objective of the investigation is to examine how the chieftaincy institution and local government in Akyem Abuakwa local communities co-exist and function alongside each other in spearheading socio- economic activities, and maintaining law and order. An additional objective is to assess the issue of whether or not traditional rule has lost its relevance and importance after the establishment of local government under the Fourth Republic of Ghana. Field data were collected from three categories of respondents: traditional leaders, government functionaries and the people (the ruled). Four main instruments were used, namely, interviewing (of traditional leaders and government functionaries); observation (of events and practices such as adjudications, deliberations, festivals and funeral ceremonies); case studies; and a survey of the people (ruled). Guided by the objectives of the study, the data from the survey were processed quantitatively and analysed alongside the qualitative data obtained from the interviewing, observation, and selected case studies. The secondary data obtained from books, journals, newspapers, statistical documents and internet, were used to enrich the analyses of the primary data. Among the findings which were central to the objectives of the study were that while the traditional leaders were performing central role in governance in the small local communities, the government functionaries, including the assemblymen, were playing peripheral role. Thus, the chieftaincy institution was seen to be well imbedded in the socio- cultural fabric of the Ghanaian communities and that the planners of the local government erred for failing to strongly feature the traditional leaders in main-stream politics. The policy implication therefore is that there is the need for policy makers to develop constitutional provisions which would strongly blend tradition (Chieftaincy) and modernity (national government structures). Some questions for potential future research are: how do we understand the changing role of chieftaincy in the governance of Ghana? Can Ghanaian chieftaincy promote patterns of democratic self-governance in the country; if so, under what conditions or in what circumstances? How do we successfully harmonize customary laws with western-based statutes to ensure effective local participation, accountability and cost-effective local government implementation? Are there examples of processes of constitutional choice and institutional design via chieftaincy that seek to strengthen citizens’ participation in the affairs of local governance? On the whole, the major issue therefore is not whether the traditional and modern systems of governance are competing against each other but how to integrate the two systems more effectively in order to provide better service to citizens in terms of representation and participation, socio-economic development and access to justice.