Chieftaincy and the Rule of First Possession: A Rebuttal

Dr. Amegashie, I read your piece with deep interest. Please receive this rebuttal with my regards.

I believe it was the late Albert Einstein who made the statement, ?Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.? I am not one to quote the European when it comes to African affairs, although in this case, I have done so in order to take you to task on a number of statements you have made regarding chieftaincy and ?royal families? in Ghana. Here is a rebuttal of some of the arguments you have made in your piece.

1. On the Right of First Possession and Chieftaincy

?In the case of chieftaincy and monarchy, it is families or groups related by blood who are claiming the right to these pieces of land based on the rule of first possession? (J. Atsu Amegashie).

It would seem appropriate to point out that at least in the Ghanaian context, the notion of ?rule of first possession? is too simplistic a coinage to be used in explaining the current context of chieftaincy with respect to land and what Dr. Amegashie has essentially described as a royal right to land. To put it in direct terms, the notion that only royal lineages, or better yet, priestly lineages?Dr. Amegashie should be informed that in Africa there are the monarchical and priestly traditions of chieftaincy?as is the case for some Ghanaian nations, claimed rights to land without obligation to spreading wealth or even what some would call ?development? is simply untrue.

Any student of the traditional leadership institutions of West Africa knows that land distribution and its usage is in accordance with a social contract that is derived from the culture and cosmology of various West African ?nations?. That is to say, whether we are speaking in the context of the Wolof of Senegal, the Evhe of Togo or even the Igbo of Nigeria, the claim that ?They [the royal families] believed that the land was theirs (i.e., the royal family) and hence they were under no obligation to spread the wealth around? (J. Atsu Amegashie) is at best no more than anecdotal sentiment on the part of what seems to be in this case, a ?professor? of that which is partly fallacious in origin.

Dr. Amegashie may want to consider that just as modern governments regulate land use, in the traditional context, those who settled initially upon lands in ancient times developed systems to apportion land as their populations grew from smaller family units into larger communities. So then, a situation where a smaller family unit evolves into a larger community of clans and sub clans would hardly support the argument that royal families or priestly lineages somehow ?were under no obligation to spread the wealth around?. Just consider that this would, in certain instances, imply the neglect of extended family of which the larger community is comprised.

Of course, chieftaincy systems derive primarily from the qualitative attributes of ?chieftaincy? as it applied to ancient societies from which our modern societies have evolved. Generally speaking, the ancient world manifested two traditions of chieftaincy: the monarchical (as applies to the Gentile nations of antiquity) and priestly (as applies to Israelite or Judaic influenced nations of old). It is clear from historical accounts that gentile nations?nations that did not subscribe to a belief in the God of Israel or Judaic custom?generally accepted a leadership tradition which accorded exceptional status to kings. This exceptional status often equated to blatant sycophancy. Case in point is ancient Egypt where the pharaohs were revered as gods. Another example would be the Wolof of Senegal whose kings are known to have forced some of their subjects into slavery. Students of Wolof culture know that the Wolof have a caste system that consists of nobles, free persons, peasants, and slaves. The Wolof caste system largely determines the social contract with respect to land usage as it did in the ancient Wolof kingdoms of the thirteenth century period.

The priestly tradition of chieftaincy, as noted among West African groups like the Evhe and Igbo, has more to do with notions of eldership such as moral leadership and other societal obligations. In ancient Israel, eldership was largely qualified by divine appointment where an individual manifested a certain level of maturity in concepts of spiritual truth and moral purity. Spiritual maturity and moral purity in ancient Israel was considered most important and prerequisite to being a chief. Eldership in societies such as the Evhe and Igbo is acquired by virtue of age or dynamism in society and thus, both nations, accord titles of eldership: Togbe and Igwe respectively. Hence, generally speaking, in these societies there are opportunities for all to find places of status and honour in society. The social contract of land acquisition favours those who are worthy of honour or who seek to make significant contributions to advance their societies and for which land acquisition, on a larger than average scale, is justifiable. Therefore, elders are entrusted with the duty of preserving community land interests and making land available to those who need it.

2. Meritocracy versus Aristocracy

In contrast to the modern western practice, where land has been commodified and is supposedly accessible to all who can pay (a false notion that should be evident to any African living in Europe or North America), ancient social contracts intended for land usage honoured the brave and diligent with choice pieces. After all, this was the ancient interpretation of ?meritocracy?. Professor Amegashie conveniently refers to meritocracy in his piece without qualifying the term. Perhaps his acquisition of the Philosophiae Doctor is what he is referring to when he says ?I believe in meritocracy not aristocracy? (J. Atsu Amegashie). I wonder if a PhD in the economic customs of European descendants would be of any value in qualifying a person to defend the land heritage of African peoples. Hmmm, now that is food for thought. However let me point out that even in the monarchical tradition of chieftaincy, aristocracy does not imply an absence of the elements of vibrant and relevant meritocracy. With the priestly tradition of chieftaincy, meritocracy equates to having achieved maturity in an established moral order. The requirement is that chiefs must meet and live up to established standards. It is, for this reason, that Evhe polities have enshrined dekonuwo (codes of social conduct) as part of traditional governance schemes.

Now let me proceed to say a few things about the Evhe and their usage of land. Among the Evhe, the idea that land is not to be sold is entrenched. Thus, we have understanding that chiefs and other elders are trustees of land for future generations. Dr. Amegashie may want to investigate into the arrangements that have led to lands being made available for school and other community projects in various parts of Evhenyigba. Could it be that in some cases, lands are granted by traditional authorities? The same ones who Dr. Amegashie described as ?traditionally? not having a development oriented mentality that puts the benefit of all first when it comes to land distribution?

Dr. Amegashie may therefore want to reconsider his statement that ?Traditionally, our chiefs or royal families have not had a development-oriented mentality where the wealth of the land was distributed fairly for the benefit of all? (J. Atsu Amegashie). This statement necessitates a pondering of the agrarian economies of the not so distant past. It also necessitates a look at issues like the relative absence of homelessness in traditional states when compared to the urban centers of the western world where land has been commodified. Please note that Ghanaian society has come to know these traditional states as ?traditional areas? given the nomenclature reforms of the 1961 Chieftaincy Act. In our pondering, we may be able to see whether Dr. Amegashie?s previously mentioned words are worth the white of calico.

The claim that clinics were not built by chiefs of yesteryear is something that must be interpreted in terms of an absence of certain modern views on sickness that are held today. Western medicine largely views sickness from the physical (as opposed to the spiritual perspective) and hence requires the construction of ?clinics? as one of its basic essentials in order to testify that a community is developed. This was not so in blema (Evhe for antiquity), however. To accuse the ancients of not seeing things the way some have grown accustomed to seeing them today is not fair without first investigating what institutions they had in place in past times, and of course, why those institutions were in place.

Dr. Amegashie also noted, ?You could be a citizen of a village but you were not entitled to the resources of that village because you did not belong to the royal family of that village? (J. Atsu Amegashie). If we consider this statement as it applies to traditional Igbo society where titled men and women are often not born into titles but rather acquire title, property and prestige through merit of community service, we can justifiably dismiss Professor Amegashie?s arguments as lacking props.

3. Qualifying the elected Ghanaian Politician

?There are hardcore traditionalists who will disagree with me. To these traditionalists, my message to you is as follows: if you want to keep chieftaincy, please tell our chiefs to spread the wealth around? (J. Atsu Amegashie).

To Dr. Amegashie it should also be made known, to those who support democratic governance in the western context (in Ghana) that: if you want to keep democracy, tell the modern politicians that leadership requires guts, compassion and lots of telling of the truth. Moral fortitude is essential to leadership, period!

Years in a western university acquiring an MA or PhD do not qualify anyone to lead a country, let alone a family or sub national region. For the fact that a graduate degree often implies allowing foreigners to shape a student?s way of thinking to conform with theirs, high mindedness, and blatant rejection of spiritual truth, Ghanaians should be highly suspect about putting PhDs, most notably those who subscribe to measuring economic progress in terms of frivolous tags like GDP and GNP, in positions of governance.

Ghana has seen enough to know that many of its academics turned politicians are egotistical, deceitful, and worst of all, unable to deliver economic results without putting an entire nation into billions of dollars of debt.

Just consider that Dr. Amegashie with all his years of academia behind him uttered that infamous statement of folly that the Europeans have customarily applied to Africa: ?we are poor?. Nyatefe, ade bada fona nu bada, eye nku makponu kpona nu le viviti gome, togbo be kekeli le anyi/ Verily, an evil tongue speaks evil, and the eye that refuses to see, sees things negatively even though there is light (Etornam Dugbazah). For the record, it is not Ghana that is poor; it is the learned like Dr. Amegashie whose minds are poor. In the midst of wealth, they see poverty because their minds are conditioned to borrow green paper, accept seven to eight digit figures in computers (I mean World Bank transfers) and to seek permission from the west to exploit their own intellectual and natural resources. Oh well, that is what academia can do to you.

Let me end by saying that Ghana?s experience with academics turned politicians makes it necessary to give this advice: academics need to recognise that if they will lead, then where applicable, they must abide by the essentials of Ghana?s traditional social customs instead of advocating that they be scrapped whenever they conflict with their foreign-acquired viewpoints and lifestyles. Chieftaincy is here to stay! If you feel too big to submit yourself to the authority of a traditional ruler, consult your local traditional council with justifiable terms for destoolment. After all, just as chiefs are fallible, elected status does not imply any saintly quality or performance advantage in leadership. Besides, it can be shown that the influence of academia on a number of chiefs in Ghana has tainted this most grand institution. This same academia is largely responsible for the corrupt attitudes and apathy of elected politicians in Ghana today.

Sincerely,
Etornam Kordzo Dugbazah
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.