Chieftaincy, the State, and Contemporary Governance in Africa

An institution Africa cannot afford to ignore

Africa’s governance debate is often framed around the institutions of the modern state: presidents, parliaments, courts, local government authorities, and public administration. Yet, across much of the continent, another enduring institution continues to influence public life, mediate disputes, shape community identity, and mobilise resources for development: traditional authority.

In Ghana, chieftaincy remains a particularly important part of the country’s social and institutional landscape. Chiefs continue to command cultural respect, influence land administration, support community development, and serve as intermediaries between local populations and government. Their relevance is evident in both rural communities and rapidly urbanising settlements, where traditional authorities frequently participate in negotiations over land, infrastructure, investment and social cohesion.

This persistence challenges the assumption that modernisation necessarily renders traditional institutions obsolete. Instead, chieftaincy has adapted to changing political and economic circumstances, often finding new roles within contemporary governance systems (Adotey, 2019; Tieleman & Uitermark, 2019).

With that in mind, the continued relevance of traditional authority raises an important question: how can chieftaincy meaningfully contribute to democratic governance without undermining constitutional institutions, public accountability, and the rights of the citizens?

The answer lies neither in romanticising traditional authority nor in dismissing it as a relic of the past. Rather, Africa needs a governance framework that recognises the potential contributions of traditional institutions while establishing clear boundaries, transparent practices, and effective partnerships with the state.

Chieftaincy and the African State is a relationship of Coexistence and Tension

For Ghana, this is more than a cultural question. It is a development imperative.

Traditional authority predates the modern African state. Before colonial rule, many African societies operated under political systems that included chiefs, kings, councils of elders, lineage authorities and other customary institutions. Their structures and powers varied considerably across societies, reflecting different historical experiences, political arrangements, and customary practices.

Colonial administration transformed these institutions. In many territories, colonial authorities incorporated selected chiefs into systems of indirect rule, sometimes strengthening their administrative powers while subordinating them to colonial officials. In other instances, colonial intervention altered succession arrangements, redefined territorial authority, or generated disputes over legitimacy.

Mamdani (1996) argues that colonial governance produced a divided political order in which urban populations were governed through civil institutions while many rural populations experienced forms of customary authority administered through local structures. Although African countries have since developed their own constitutional and administrative systems, the historical relationship between customary authority and state power continues to influence contemporary governance.

Post-independence governments have approached chieftaincy differently. Some have sought to restrict traditional authorities, viewing them as potential competitors to national political power. Others have recognised their influence and incorporated them into development initiatives, dispute resolution, and community mobilisation.

Ghana illustrates this complex relationship. The institution of chieftaincy enjoys constitutional protection, but it operates within a state whose sovereignty, public administration, and democratic legitimacy are grounded in the Constitution.

Adotey (2019) demonstrates that the relationship between chieftaincy and the state cannot always be understood as a simple division between two independent institutions. Traditional authorities may possess legitimacy derived from customary practices and community recognition while simultaneously depending on state institutions for formal recognition, adjudication, and access to public authority.

This relationship is therefore neither entirely competitive nor automatically complementary. It is negotiated continuously through questions of legitimacy, jurisdiction, resources, and political influence.

The challenge for contemporary governance is to turn this relationship into a productive partnership without allowing either institution to exercise power beyond its legitimate mandate.

Ghana’s constitutional settlement is a recognition without political subordination

Ghana provides an important example of how a modern democratic state can recognise traditional authority within a constitutional framework.

Article 270 of the 1992 Constitution guarantees the institution of chieftaincy, together with traditional councils established by customary law and usage. The Constitution also protects the institution against legislative measures that would improperly undermine its dignity or recognition. Articles 271–274 establish the constitutional framework for the Regional Houses of Chiefs and the National House of Chiefs, while Article 276 restricts chiefs from taking part in active party politics, subject to the constitutional provision concerning abdication (Republic of Ghana, 1992).

The Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), further provides the statutory framework governing the Houses of Chiefs, traditional councils, and the adjudication of chieftaincy matters (Republic of Ghana, 2008).

This constitutional settlement reflects an important principle: traditional authority can coexist with democratic government without becoming an ordinary extension of the political executive.

Nevertheless, constitutional recognition does not automatically resolve practical governance challenges. Questions remain about the appropriate relationship between chiefs and district assemblies, the management of customary land, the resolution of succession disputes, and the extent to which traditional authorities should participate in public development planning.

Research by Honyenuga and Wutoh (2019) identifies potential role conflicts between chiefs and local government actors in Ghana’s decentralised governance system. Where responsibilities are poorly coordinated, traditional authorities and elected officials may compete for influence, duplicate initiatives, or disagree over development priorities.

Such tensions are not inevitable. They are often symptoms of institutional arrangements that fail to define responsibilities clearly or establish effective channels for cooperation.

Ghana should therefore build on its constitutional framework by strengthening practical cooperation between traditional institutions and democratic local government. Chiefs should be recognised as important development partners, while district assemblies must retain their lawful responsibilities for public planning, budgeting, service delivery, and accountability.

The objective should be institutional complementarity, not competition.

Traditional Authority as a resource for Local Development

One of the strongest arguments for engaging traditional authorities in contemporary governance is our potential to mobilise local knowledge, community participation and collective action.

Development programmes frequently encounter difficulties when they are designed without adequate consultation with the communities they are intended to serve. Infrastructure projects may fail to reflect local priorities, public education campaigns may encounter cultural resistance, and land-related investments may become entangled in competing claims.

Traditional authorities can help bridge these gaps

Their understanding of local histories, customary arrangements, social relationships and community concerns can assist government agencies and development partners in designing interventions that are more responsive to local circumstances. Chiefs may also mobilise voluntary contributions, facilitate dialogue, support educational initiatives, and encourage community participation in sanitation, health, and environmental protection.

Research on traditional authority in Ghana shows that chiefs have adapted to contemporary circumstances by acting as development brokers, facilitating relationships between communities, public institutions, investors, and other external actors.

In this respect, traditional authority can complement the technical and administrative capacities of the state.

Consider a community seeking to attract investment in agriculture, tourism, small-scale manufacturing or agro-processing. A chief who facilitates transparent consultation among landholding families, prospective investors, local government and community representatives may help reduce misunderstandings and build confidence. The resulting investment could support employment, local enterprise and infrastructure development.

However, such contributions depend on responsible leadership. Community mobilisation should not become a mechanism for imposing decisions on residents, and customary legitimacy should not be treated as a substitute for legal due diligence, environmental assessment, or the protection of property rights.

Traditional authorities can facilitate development, but successful development requires institutions that protect both collective interests and individual rights.

Land Governance is the test of Responsible Chieftaincy

Few governance questions illustrate the opportunities and risks associated with traditional authority more clearly than land administration.

In Ghana, customary landholding arrangements remain significant, and chiefs or other customary authorities may exercise important responsibilities in land management, depending on the applicable customary system and legal arrangements. Land is central to housing, agriculture, industrial development, infrastructure, and urban expansion.

As cities grow and investment demand increases, the economic value of land rises. This creates opportunities for development but also intensifies disputes over ownership, boundaries, consent, compensation and the distribution of benefits.

Tieleman and Uitermark (2019), examining traditional authority in an expanding urban settlement in Ghana, show how modern state formation can reshape chiefs’ roles as land managers and intermediaries between communities and public institutions. Traditional authority does not simply disappear under modernisation; it can acquire new forms of influence through changing governance and land markets.

This transformation makes accountability especially important.

Where land transactions are poorly documented, communities may struggle to determine whether decisions reflect legitimate customary authority, the interests of particular officeholders, or competing claims among families and customary beneficiaries. The consequences can include litigation, stalled investment, displacement and diminished public confidence.

The solution is not to exclude traditional authorities from land governance. It is to strengthen transparency and lawful administration.

Customary land transactions should be supported by reliable documentation, clear identification of relevant rights and interests, accessible dispute-resolution mechanisms, and compliance with applicable land legislation. Communities should receive understandable information about transactions affecting their land, including relevant financial arrangements and the distribution of benefits.

Traditional leaders should also encourage meaningful participation by women, young people, and other groups whose interests may be overlooked in customary decision-making.

Land must be treated not merely as an asset to be commercialised but as an economic, social, and intergenerational resource. Responsible chieftaincy can help communities realise the benefits of land without sacrificing their long-term interests.

Chieftaincy, Democracy, and Public Accountability

The developmental potential of traditional authority must be assessed alongside an equally important concern. That concern is accountability!

Traditional and democratic institutions do not derive legitimacy in precisely the same way. Elected officials are authorised through constitutional electoral processes and are subject to political competition, legal oversight, and public accountability mechanisms. Chiefs derive authority through applicable customary rules, succession arrangements, community recognition and established traditional institutions.

Neither source of legitimacy automatically guarantees effective leadership.

A democratically elected official may fail to deliver public services, just as a traditional authority may fail to represent the interests of the wider community. Conversely, both institutions can contribute to public welfare when their powers are exercised responsibly.

Baldwin (2025) provides a useful framework for understanding traditional authorities by distinguishing among their actual power, their accountability to the communities they lead, and their recognition by the state. These characteristics are related but not interchangeable. An authority may be formally recognised without being strongly accountable to local residents, while another may possess considerable influence because of community support.

This distinction has important implications for Ghana.

Traditional authorities should be encouraged to adopt transparent procedures for community consultations, development contributions, project expenditure, and the communication of decisions affecting local welfare. Where chiefs establish foundations, development funds, or community projects, publicly accessible records and credible financial reporting can strengthen confidence.

Accountability should also include meaningful opportunities for community members to raise concerns without fear of exclusion or retaliation. Women, young people, persons with disabilities and minority groups within traditional areas should have opportunities to contribute to discussions about local development.

Such measures need not diminish the dignity of chieftaincy. Properly designed, they can reinforce it by demonstrating that traditional authority remains responsive to the people whose trust sustains it.

The central principle is straightforward: respect for tradition and demands for accountability are not mutually exclusive.

Gender, Youth, and the Future of Traditional Governance

Africa’s demographic and economic transformation requires traditional institutions to respond to the aspirations of younger generations and the rights of women.

Young people need opportunities for employment, entrepreneurship, skills development and participation in decisions that affect their futures. Women contribute significantly to household welfare, agriculture, commerce, education and community development, yet their participation in traditional governance varies across societies and customary systems.

Traditional institutions should therefore examine how customary practices can evolve in ways that preserve legitimate cultural values while eliminating discriminatory or socially harmful practices.

In Ghana, Article 272 of the Constitution assigns the National House of Chiefs responsibilities that include evaluating traditional customs and usages with a view to eliminating those that are outmoded and socially harmful (Republic of Ghana, 1992).

This constitutional responsibility provides a foundation for constructive reform.

Traditional authorities can support scholarship schemes, vocational training, entrepreneurship programmes, apprenticeships, and initiatives that connect young people with employment opportunities. They can also promote girls’ education, women's economic participation, public health, and the peaceful resolution of family and community disputes.

These initiatives should not be limited to ceremonial announcements. They require measurable objectives, partnerships with relevant institutions, and regular assessment of outcomes.

A chieftaincy institution that engages young people and women constructively is better positioned to remain socially relevant while contributing to inclusive development.

Conflict Resolution, Social Cohesion, and National Stability

Traditional authorities can also contribute to peacebuilding and conflict prevention.

Because chiefs may possess knowledge of local histories, family relationships, land boundaries and community grievances, they can often identify emerging disputes before they escalate. Their convening power can create opportunities for dialogue between rival groups, neighbouring communities, families, and local authorities.

Baldwin (2025) notes that state recognition of traditional institutions can be important for improving conflict resolution, although outcomes depend on the characteristics and accountability of the institutions involved.

Traditional mediation is not a universal solution. Some disputes involve complex legal questions, entrenched power imbalances, or allegations of serious wrongdoing that require formal judicial or administrative intervention. Informal processes must not be used to suppress lawful complaints, deny due process, or pressure vulnerable parties into accepting unjust settlements.

The most effective approach is therefore complementary. Traditional authorities can facilitate dialogue, early intervention, and reconciliation where appropriate, while the police, courts, and other competent institutions retain their statutory responsibilities.

This partnership is particularly important in communities facing land disputes, political tensions, resource competition, or pressures arising from rapid urbanisation.

When traditional authorities act impartially and state institutions respond fairly, the combination can strengthen social cohesion. When either institution is politicised, unaccountable, or perceived as favouring one group, existing grievances may deepen.

Peacebuilding requires legitimacy, fairness, and institutional cooperation.

Chieftaincy for Contemporary Governance

To reposition chieftaincy for contemporary governance, Ghana and other African countries should pursue five practical priorities.

First, clarify institutional responsibilities. Governments, district assemblies, and traditional councils should establish clear procedures for consultation, development planning, land-related engagement and dispute referral. Cooperation must not create uncertainty over legal authority or public accountability.

Second, strengthen transparency. Traditional authorities involved in community development initiatives should promote clear reporting on project objectives, contributions, expenditure, and results. Land transactions should follow applicable legal requirements and transparent documentation procedures.

Third, invest in capacity development. Training in mediation, environmental sustainability, digital administration, project management, financial literacy and community engagement can equip traditional institutions to address contemporary challenges without compromising their cultural foundations.

Fourth, broaden participation. Women, young people, and marginalised groups should have meaningful opportunities to contribute to community priorities and assess development outcomes. Inclusive consultation can improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of local decisions.

Fifth, protect institutional independence while promoting collaboration. Traditional authorities should not become instruments of partisan political mobilisation. Equally, governments should not use administrative influence to manipulate succession, customary legitimacy, or community leadership for short-term political advantage.

These reforms should be adapted to local histories and customary systems rather than imposed through a uniform model. Traditional authority varies significantly across Africa, and governance arrangements that work in one setting may not be appropriate in another.

The objective is not to make every traditional institution identical. It is to ensure that their public contributions are compatible with constitutional government, human dignity and sustainable development.

Tradition is a Partner in Africa’s Governance Future

The future of African governance will not be determined solely by the strength of formal state institutions. It will also depend on how effectively societies engage the diverse institutions through which communities organise themselves, resolve disputes, preserve identity and pursue collective welfare.

Chieftaincy remains an important part of this institutional landscape. Its persistence reflects more than cultural attachment. Traditional authorities can possess community knowledge, social legitimacy, convening capacity and relationships that are valuable for local development.

Yet these advantages should not shield traditional institutions from legitimate scrutiny. Customary authority must operate within the applicable constitutional and legal framework, respect individual rights, and remain responsive to the communities it serves.

For Ghana, the task is to build a stronger partnership between chieftaincy and the modern state, one that preserves cultural heritage while advancing transparency, inclusion, economic opportunity and democratic accountability.

The measure of successful traditional leadership should be the quality of life experienced by the people under its care, the opportunities available to young people, the security of land rights, the inclusion of women, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the progress of communities.

Africa does not need to choose between tradition and modern governance. It needs institutions capable of bringing the strengths of both into a responsible and productive relationship.

That is the challenge facing contemporary chieftaincy and the opportunity it must seize.

Thank you for reading. I welcome your reflections, questions, and suggestions for future topics. Subscribe to the ‘Entrepreneur In You’ newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/d-hgCVPy, follow me on all social platforms at @thisisthemax, or get weekly updates via my official WhatsApp channel: www.bit.ly/whatsappthemax.

Readers seeking a deeper engagement with these themes may find the following sources useful, each offering more detailed treatment of specific dimensions of the subject.

•⁠ ⁠Adotey, E. (2019). Parallel or dependent? The state, chieftaincy and institutions of governance in Ghana. African Affairs, 118(473), 628–645. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/ady060

•⁠ ⁠Baldwin, K. (2025). Traditional authorities around the world: Toward a better understanding of their de facto power, downward accountability, and state recognition. Annual Review of Political Science, 28, 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-070723-012434

•⁠ ⁠Honyenuga, B. Q., & Wutoh, E. H. (2019). Ghana’s decentralized governance system: The role of chiefs. International Journal of Public Leadership, 15(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-01-2018-0005

•⁠ Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton University Press.

•⁠ Republic of Ghana. (1992). Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992. https://ghalii.org/akn/gh/act/1992/constitution/eng%401996-12-31

•⁠ Republic of Ghana. (2008). Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759). https://ghalii.org/akn/gh/act/2008/759/eng%402008-06-20

•⁠ ⁠Tieleman, J., & Uitermark, J. (2019). Chiefs in the city: Traditional authority in the modern state. Sociology, 53(4), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518809325

Wishing you a purposeful and successful week ahead!

'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'

The author, Dr. Maxwell Ampong, is an entrepreneur, investor and corporate executive, Founder & CEO of Maxwell Investments Group and its affiliates and subsidiaries. His work spans finance, technology, sustainability, trade, enterprise development and institutional partnerships. He serves in executive and advisory capacities across business, academia, culture, agriculture and social development. He is Nana Kwadwo Marfo Ampong I, Aboafuohene of Kona in Asanteman. Dr Ampong holds postgraduate qualifications in Finance & Investment Management, Law, Business Administration, Public Administration, International Relations, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. He writes on economics, investment, entrepreneurship, technology, social and sustainable development. Entrepreneur In You operates under the auspices of the Africa School of Entrepreneurship, an initiative of Maxwell Investments Group.

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. Maxwell Ampong, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or beliefs of Maxwell Investments Group or any of its affiliates. Any references to policy or regulation reflect the author’s interpretation and are not intended to represent the formal stance of Maxwell Investments Group. This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. Readers should seek independent advice before making any decisions based on this material. Maxwell Investments Group assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided.