The Practicality of Democratic Governance and Chieftaincy in Contemporary Ghana – (I)

Calling Okunka Bannerman's bluff

Once again this writer is compelled to respond to Okunka Bannerman's vituperations. He has variously asserted that democracy and chieftaincy cannot coexist in the contemporary society. To put it in his own words he claims: “royalty and meritocratic democracy are not bedmates”. The notion is obviously misleading considering the harmonious relationship our traditional rulers have shared with the elected office holders since the coming into effect of the Fourth Republican Constitution. This particular piece is being done with a heavy heart not because of the insults heaped on yours truly in the man's piece titled “Chieftaincy Ands Politics II – Rejoinder”. The sorrow stems from how semi-intellectuals can employ their pens (figuratively) in an attempt to break the country just because they do not like those occupying high political and/or important offices in the country. To this writer that is the obvious conclusion to be deduced from the ravings and ranting churned in most of the man's writings. He can also count on the fact that yours truly remains undaunted by his insults and scorn. He would not descend into the gutter to do battle as that is not the 'civil' way of doing things.

The other day Okunka Bannerman was advised to stick to issues and present coherent debates but that does not seem to be his forte. It is not surprising because he admits he does not consider civility a virtue to be desired. Sadly he does seem incapable of differentiating between forthrightness and abusiveness. The underlying issue to the whole debate is his assertion that chieftaincy is the bane of our underdevelopment as a people and a country. He claims further that the continuous migration of many Ghanaians to America and Europe is the direct result of the failure of the institution of chieftaincy to bring development into the country. False as the view is he is entitled to hold it as his rights are guaranteed under our national laws and those of the international community. Significantly just this week a research by Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah and Catherine Drew published by the British Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain indicates one out of every British live abroad. It is interesting to note that Britain is the fourth biggest economy in the world. Going by Okunka Bannerman's line of thinking the British emigration phenomenon is the result of the existence of the monarchy! Whereas he believes he can express his anti-chieftancy opinions freely he continuously fails to appreciate that others are also entitled to support chieftaincy especially as the institution is backed by no less a document than the supreme law of the land which is the constitution and other acts passed by the sovereign parliament of the country. He blatantly ignores every fact which proves this view and obstinately insists that President Kufuor supports chieftaincy because he shares the traditions of the National Liberation Movement (NLM) and the Unity Party (UP). Again he deliberately fails to acknowledge the President is fulfilling an oath he swore and reiterates he “sees nothing insulting about excoriating our president for sending us back into the recklessness of dark age ritual murder and irrelevant traditional contortions” and claims further this writer can consider his “spiced up jazzy vibes as insults”.

A number of issues would be considered under these write-ups. Prominent among them would be an analysis of what the concept of meritocracy entails. While the gentleman claims democracy and chieftaincy cannot be bed-fellows evidence would be adduced to prove the contrary. He further claims this writer was splitting hairs over the concept of reasoning and thinking. Free education on the concepts would be offered him if he so desires. In this piece two main issues would be addressed. The first is the gentleman's lack of appreciation of political concepts and ideologies. Then a consideration would be given to his antipathy towards Asantes.

Concept and Issue Appreciation

It is typical Okunka Bannerman to employ rhetoric when he cannot make coherent argument. In his piece under review he keeps asking questions which any student of politics or sociology (he claims to be a student of leadership) should easily know or at worst be capable of researching. One cannot tell whether he genuinely requires the answers or is just employing the rhetoric to dodge addressing the real issues at stake. The crux of the debate includes:

• Is President Kufuor right in upholding the constitution of the country by according the institution of chieftaincy the right of existence and taking steps to equip chiefs to play a more meaningful role in the socio-economic development of the country?
• Should chieftaincy be personified by the Asantehene in a debate about the relevance of the institution in contemporary society?
• Should political debates be reduced to personality excoriation of individuals who share a particular ethnic identity?
• Should political symbols take precedence over political ideologies?

These are some of the issues Okunka Bannerman cannot address hence his resort to personal attacks on this writer. In subsequent pieces a consideration would be given to the local government system but suffice to state at this level that no chief collects taxes from the citizens in his or her area. To therefore hold chiefs rather than the national government responsible for the failures of the local government system seems to defy every intellectual analysis. It is noteworthy that although we have a local government system the fear of the national government starting from the colonial period until now has refused to devolve real power to the local level hence the numerous inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in the system. In the last write up of your truly the concept of federalism in Ghana a view supported by the NLM was brought forward but again Okunka Bannerman chose to respond to a flag rather than the concept. He refused to consider the stated system of governance proposed by the NLM and the diversity of people behind the party but chose to parochially dwell on the symbolism of its flag. Again he could not substantiate his flippant claim that Ghana is a failed state. This is an obvious parroting of the view of the right wing American, Pat Buchannan who labelled our country as a failed state to spite our venerable Kofi Annan for daring to criticise the American government over its policy in Iraq.

Okunka Bannerman believes this writer is a fanatical supporter of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) who does not know the party's history. For his information yours truly is not a registered member of any political party and were he to vote in any election under the present climate definitely the NPP could count on that single vote. Indeed that is what a majority of Ghanaians have done in the last two general elections in the country. Typically he cannot declare his stance but of course it would give his game away; yet he is forthright!!! His propositions are at best steeped in idealist unrealism and in most instances based on unsubstantiated and manufactured facts. The least said about his emotional outbursts the better. The other day it was his call on Christians to stand up against the institution of Chieftaincy. When this writer used the Bible to pointedly display the blasphemy he was proposing he could not accept the fact and came out with guns blazing at yours truly querying:

Have you followed the institution of the monarchy-Kings, Samuel etc to the fall of the northern Kingdom in the Old Testament? Are you aware that God was against the institution of the monarchy? Did God not warn the Israelites not to go for earthly rulers? Are you aware that it is the rebellion of Israel against what was a theocracy that led to their demise?

As irrelevant as this was to the debate he could not rely on any Christian teaching in the Bible to back the blasphemous views he was propounding. He was compelled to concede only when the religious plurality of the country was pointed out to him. And these were his words: “I agree with you that I should have called on other religions too. That I concede. Trust me, I did not deliberately singled out Christians! If folks from other religions are offended, they have my sincere and unconditional apologies.” For this writer it shows what lack of objectivity and appreciation can bring into national debates.

Okunka Bannerman's Anti-Asante Agenda

It is insightful to note that the gentleman is not the only individual who is against the institution. As has been stated before, in the current climate of democratic governance the right of the individual is nationally and internationally protected. This writer has shared very civil and polite debates with other writers who believe the institution has outlived its usefulness but never was a word of insult exchanged. Dr. J. Atsu Amegashie in his piece entitled “Chieftaincy: I Have a Question” makes a case for the anti-chieftaincy stance without insulting any individual or group. When this writer chose to praise Okunka Bannerman on a write-up it was no way meant as an expectation of the gentleman changing his anti-Asante posture. It was only an expression of the wonderment at the objectivity the man was capable of exhibiting. In any event the quality of the said piece can almost certainly be traceable to the fine gentlemen who served as resource persons to Okunka Bannerman. With a high degree of certainty these gentlemen would never allow their names to be associated with mediocrity. It is interesting he calls supporters of the national institution tribalists. As difficult as it is to understand the meaning of what he means by 'tribalist' it is almost crystal clear that Okunka Bannerman is an ethnocentric who has more than displayed his hatred for Asantes, in particular, and anything to do with them. As if by coincidence all personality attacks in Okunka-Bannerman's writings have tended to be against Asantes. Notable among the people he attacks are President Kufuor, Otumfuo Osei Tutu, the Asantehene, Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings and now Okyeame Bafuor Akoto. The common denominator between these personalities is the fact that they are all Asantes.

Even a casual analysis of Okunka Bannerman's writings cannot fail to unearth the trend of his anti-Asante agenda. The question has been posed severally as to why he is vilifying President Kufuor for upholding the constitution of Ghana. Again he typically ignores the support all sections of the political divide in parliament gives to the institution of Chieftaincy. Interestingly in a recent parliamentary debate, Mr Albert Kwasi Zigah the NDC Member of Parliament for Ketu South went as far as calling for a portion of the District Assembly's Common Fund to be channelled to chiefs for development. To therefore ridicule the President and the NPP tradition for “sending us back into the recklessness of dark age ritual murder and irrelevant traditional contortions” defies logic and the reality of the situation. But of course only the people in the 'Matemeho' tradition are capable of supporting the institution of chieftaincy! In this age and time of equality the gentleman deems Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings “unfit for a dog-catcher” (an expression he used against President Kufuor elsewhere) when it was rumoured that the wife of President Rawlings had ambitions of running for the presidency in 2004. Significantly Liberia has voted into office the first ever woman president in Africa. Even in the male dominated politics of the United States many political watchers believe the next American president could be a woman. Then is Bannerman's denigration of the Asantehene and personifying him with everything wrong about chieftaincy. The most farcical of his Asantehene hate campaign is the creation of the 'crime of influence peddling'. Okunka Bannerman is dared to show in which criminal code or legal lexicon such a crime exists. Reference has been made already with his personification of the institution of chieftaincy with the Asantehene. His failure to respond to the issue in his personality attack on yours truly in his last write up is too loud by its silence. His disparagement of Okyeame Akoto as 'tribalist' is a bizarre insult he alone can explain. He proclaims the revered statesman as 'tribalist' yet legal luminaries cite him as a champion for constitutional rule in Ghana. Okunka Bannerman could not react to why the Law Students of Ghana have chosen to honour the memory of Bafuor Akoto for his contribution towards the development of constitutional law by instituting lectures in his name. Perhaps that is also another revisionist exercise!

For the information of Okunka Bannerman the debate has just began. But a word of advice to him is that it would take more than insults for yours truly to come down to his level. The rhetoric, innuendoes and half-truths does not wash with this writer. His insults are like darts on the back of the porcupine! It would be instructive for his cause to realise that those who make a difference such as the Nobel Prize winner Prof. Mohammed Yunus did so through practical application but not through insults and rhetoric.

God bless Ghana.

Kofi Nyame
Thornton Heath
Surrey

P.S.: For the information of Okunka Bannerman this writer does not live in Australia, a little research could have unearthed this little fact.