Local governance, decentralization and democracy are key components of the traditional Ghanaian institution of chieftaincy. In the past this institution engendered participatory democracy, good governance and social protection, but it is currently challenged by the formal decentralization of public administration. Although the institution has remained intact, its functions have gone through several paradigm shifts during both the colonial and post-independence eras of Ghana.
This paper finds that while chieftaincy does not currently form part of the formal local government administration structure, it maintains an informal and sacrosanct niche in local governance. The roles of the institution need to be redefined and clarified within the nexus of traditions, demands of good governance and modern local democracy to enable it to provide a complementary conduit for effective and efficient local governance for development.
Key findings:
A number of challenges have been identified with respect to customary/traditional and modern inter-actions with democratic institutions and processes. Among the major challenges are:
- the undefined nature of the consultation required between the president and traditional authorities;
- a partisan central government working with a non-partisan local government;
- the ad hoc collaboration between traditional authorities and elected assembly members due to the absence of a defined process;
- the low calibre of some assembly members;
- apparent unfairness in the allocation of DACF to the benefit of metropolitan and municipal assemblies;
- the resistance from some personnel of the decentralized departments to be integrated into the district assemblies;
- apathy of local residents in some assembly areas;
- politicization of local governance leadership, especially in the appointment of district chief executives;
- low motivation and lack of incentives for personnel at the community levels of the decentralization structure;
- the likelihood that traditional authorities will use their position to their advantage if represented on assemblies; and
- reports of misuse of stool lands revenues.
Chieftaincy institution is still familiar to and perceived by local residents as governance at their doorstep. Especially in rural areas, chiefs are recognized as icons and administrators of community ethics, justice and security, and as custodians of traditional values. Local democracy and governance therefore operate from the chief ’s residence. On the contrary, in the big towns and urban areas, urbanization and cosmopolitanism (including large, ethnically diverse migrant populations) have overshadowed the visibility of chieftaincy in most municipal and metropolitan assembly areas, thus shifting the focus to local assemblies.
In both cases, however, varied levels of interaction exist between customary and modern local governance, which could either enhance or undermine the latter, depending on how the nexus of interaction is negotiated. In order to ensure chiefs’ positive involvement, legislation and policies related to local governance should explicitly spell out roles and procedures—including constitutional consultation— and the manner of fusion of any such defined roles with the new decentralization policy framework in order to promote effective local governance and development.
