MAKING CHIEFTAINCY RELEVANT

LONG before the formation of modern-day nation states, Africans had their own governance systems which met the needs of the people.
To some people, the African chieftaincy institution is archaic, autocratic and irrelevant in contemporary polity.
But, in Ghana, we know that the chieftaincy institution is not a one-man creature but that its leadership is selected by democratic means.
In the Akan communities in Ghana, although the processes of nomination, election and enstoolment are a family matter, they are quite transparent.
Until recently when some stools were virtually "auctioned" to the highest bidder, non-royals could not get close to stools. It was a taboo and many believed that if that happened the ancestors would exact their revenge, hence the reverence for the chieftaincy institution.
As a result, the institution was the preserve of honest and upright people who were role models in society.
Having come thus far in the reconstruction of modern statehood, a lot needs to be done to reform our chieftaincy institution in order to complement the modern democratic governance system to advance the country's development agenda.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for a re-engineering of the chieftaincy institution to meet the aspirations of our times.
Some of our traditional communities continue to practise old traditional norms such as female genital mutilation (FGM), Trokosi, widowhood rites, early marriage, prolonged funeral rites, among other practices.
The heart-warming news is that despite the concerns over the chieftaincy institution, it is recognised under our new democratic dispensation.
President J. A. Kufuor hit the nail right on the head during his meeting with the Kabaga of Buganda in Accra yesterday when he called on traditional rulers to reform African traditional practices which impeded development in order to bring them into conformity with modernity.
Quite rightly, chiefs owe it a duty to support their governments to galvanise the people for development.
Our chiefs are held in very high esteem and in many communities their directives cannot be defied.
It is because of the immense influence chiefs wield over their people that the Constitution places them above partisan politics. However, in spite of this influence that chiefs have over their people, some of them have been sidelined in the governance of the country.
Although the 1992 Constitution requires that traditional authorities be consulted on the composition of the one-third government appointees to district assemblies, they are normally ignored.
It is essential for chiefs to be accorded the necessary recognition because they are the rallying platform to plan, initiate and execute policies and projects in respect of all matters affecting the people in order to deepen the decentralisation process.
This drawback notwithstanding, the chieftaincy institution can continue to play its useful role in governance if chiefs reform the traditional practices that are inimical to the people's well-being.
Our chiefs must help to give the chieftaincy institution a new image by rejecting outmoded cultural practices, for, after all, there is something in a name and that is why it is said "give a dog a bad name and hang it".