The Role of Traditional Institution in Modern Ghana
CDD/ODI Policy Brief No. 4 CDD/ODI Policy Brief No. 4, November 2005
The role of traditional institutions in political change and development
Richard Crook Why traditional institutions? Among development practitioners, there is growing interest in the search for more ‘authentic’ and socially embedded civil society actors. Renewed interest is being shown in whether locally-based traditional institutions match this description, given their continuing importance in respect to local justice, land and community development activities. This paper looks at the role of traditional institutions, especially chiefs, in Ghanaian society and politics. It asks what kind of contribution they might make to the strengthening of civil society and to democratic demands for better government. The main arguments of the paper are: 1. Traditional institutions and leaders in Ghana remain a very significant element in society which cannot be ignored. But they vary enormously across the different cultures and localities of the country, and it is difficult to formulate policies or approaches which would be of general validity. 2. Chieftaincy in particular is a contested and a highly political institution, because of its associations with authority and power, and as a result of its politicisation by successive governments and parties. It cannot be treated simply as a ‘civil society’ group. 3. Extreme caution should therefore be exercised in respect of policies which might encourage a renewal of official participation by chiefs in political life or government. The undoubted contribution that some chiefs make to local development efforts should continue to be structured by informal and community-based mechanisms. 4. On the other hand, their role in land administration is so important that it does need to be more regularised and regulated. The role of traditional institutions in modern Ghana What are traditional institutions? In this paper, the phrase refers to all those forms of social and
The role of traditional institutions in political change and development
Richard Crook Why traditional institutions? Among development practitioners, there is growing interest in the search for more ‘authentic’ and socially embedded civil society actors. Renewed interest is being shown in whether locally-based traditional institutions match this description, given their continuing importance in respect to local justice, land and community development activities. This paper looks at the role of traditional institutions, especially chiefs, in Ghanaian society and politics. It asks what kind of contribution they might make to the strengthening of civil society and to democratic demands for better government. The main arguments of the paper are: 1. Traditional institutions and leaders in Ghana remain a very significant element in society which cannot be ignored. But they vary enormously across the different cultures and localities of the country, and it is difficult to formulate policies or approaches which would be of general validity. 2. Chieftaincy in particular is a contested and a highly political institution, because of its associations with authority and power, and as a result of its politicisation by successive governments and parties. It cannot be treated simply as a ‘civil society’ group. 3. Extreme caution should therefore be exercised in respect of policies which might encourage a renewal of official participation by chiefs in political life or government. The undoubted contribution that some chiefs make to local development efforts should continue to be structured by informal and community-based mechanisms. 4. On the other hand, their role in land administration is so important that it does need to be more regularised and regulated. The role of traditional institutions in modern Ghana What are traditional institutions? In this paper, the phrase refers to all those forms of social and