Introduction: Lessons from the Ancestors
From the early empires of Ghana’s interior to the vibrant coastal towns, history shows that traditional leadership has long played a foundational role in governance and development. Visionary kings such as Osei Tutu I, the architect of the Asante Empire, not only united disparate Akan states but instituted systems of taxation, defense, and administration that strengthened regional cohesion. The creation of the Golden Stool under his leadership symbolized not just unity but a profound political innovation rooted in spirituality and identity.
Elsewhere, Nana Kwamena Ansah, the revered Chief of Elmina ushered in an era of infrastructure and trade reforms in the 19th century, strategically balancing indigenous values and European interactions to enhance prosperity. In northern Ghana, Naa Gbewaa, the progenitor of the Mole-Dagbani states, promoted peace and established systems of conflict resolution that made diplomacy and commerce possible across ethnic boundaries.
These leaders were not mere custodians of culture, they were architects of progress and development partners. Today’s traditional leaders inherit this legacy, yet their vast potential as partners in modern development remains largely untapped.
Traditional Authority: Ghana’s Enduring Development Partner
Traditional authorities in Ghana continue to hold deep-rooted legitimacy and influence, particularly in rural and peri-urban communities. As one chief observed, “The chief is the father of the community. Every problem starts from his palace and ends there.” This statement resonates with the reality that for many Ghanaians, the palace, not the parliament, is the first point of contact for governance.
Contemporary research supports this perception. According to Afrobarometer Round 7 (2019), over 70% of Ghanaians express trust in their traditional leaders, a figure higher than those for elected officials and even religious leaders. This trust, grounded in cultural continuity and social familiarity, makes chiefs a critical bridge between the state and the citizenry.
Their roles in managing land, settling disputes, mobilising community labour, and preserving cultural identity make traditional leaders indispensable allies in the development process.
Inclusive Planning: Chiefs as Channels for Local Development
Genuine development must be locally grounded and participatory. Chiefs possess the cultural capital, communication networks, and community trust necessary to facilitate inclusive planning. As one district stakeholder aptly stated, “Development should not be imposed. The people must feel part of the planning process, and this cannot happen without their traditional leaders.”
In districts where chiefs have been involved in Municipal, Metropolitan, and District Assemblies (MMDAs), community participation in public meetings has increased, and projects have seen greater compliance and smoother implementation. The chief’s endorsement is often all that is needed for a project to gain traction.
This is consistent with scholarly findings. Boafo-Arthur (2003) and Ray (1996) argue that integrating traditional leaders into Ghana’s decentralized planning structures improves the responsiveness and legitimacy of local governance.
Peacebuilding and Conflict Resolution: The Invisible Infrastructure
Beyond their developmental contributions, traditional leaders play a vital role in maintaining social cohesion. Chiefs serve as mediators and arbitrators in land disputes, family conflicts, and succession matters, often resolving issues far more quickly and amicably than the formal judicial system. As one chief noted, “We settle the issues quickly before they destroy the community. If we wait for court, it takes years and causes divisions.”
Logan (2009) calls this the “invisible infrastructure” of governance, an informal system that often functions more effectively than formal state mechanisms in fragile or underserved communities.
These traditional justice systems offer cost-effective, culturally legitimate conflict resolution services that reduce social tensions and create an enabling environment for investment and development.
A Clear Path Forward: What Must Be Done
If traditional authorities are already performing critical governance functions informally, it is both logical and strategic to empower them formally. This requires a four-pronged approach:
1. Institutional Integration:
Chiefs should be given official roles in planning and decision-making bodies, including local development committees and budgeting boards. Ubink and Amanor (2008) support this, stating that “recognition of traditional authorities within decentralized governance frameworks bridges the gap between formal state structures and local communities.”
2. Capacity Building:
Traditional leaders must be trained in contemporary governance skills IE from development planning to digital records and environmental protection. As Owusu-Mensah (2014) notes, “strengthening the administrative and technical capacities of traditional authorities is critical in enhancing their ability to contribute to sustainable development.”
3. Resource Support:
For chiefs to be effective, they need resources: staff, transportation, communication tools, and infrastructure. Supporting traditional councils logistically will enhance their operational reach, especially in remote areas.
4. Policy and Legal Reforms:
Legislative frameworks must be revised to enshrine traditional authorities as co-governors. This does not threaten state sovereignty; it enhances it through subsidiarity. Wily (2003) argues that “the formal recognition of customary institutions enhances land administration, promotes peacebuilding, and enables inclusive development that formal systems often cannot achieve alone.”
Conclusion: A Partnership Long Overdue
The history of Ghana reminds us that chiefs have always been agents of development. Nana Osei Tutu I did not need foreign aid to unify and govern. Nana Kwamena Ansah did not wait for state support to modernize his town. Naa Gbewaa did not rely on court systems to resolve disputes.
Today’s traditional leaders carry forward that legacy of self-reliance and communal responsibility. What they now need is recognition not merely symbolic, but structural. The stool is more than a cultural artifact. It is a seat of wisdom, stability, and development potential.
Ghana’s future lies not in marginalizing its past, but in embracing and integrating it. The stool and the state must rise together not as rivals, but as partners in building the nation.
References
Afrobarometer Round 7 (2019). Public Opinion and Governance in Ghana.
Boafo-Arthur, K. (2003). Chieftaincy in Ghana: Challenges and Prospects in the 21st Century.
African and Asian Studies, 2(2), 125–153.
Logan, C. (2009). Selected Chiefs, Elected Councillors and Hybrid Democrats: Popular Perspectives on the Co-Existence of Democracy and Traditional Authority. Journal of Modern African Studies, 47(1), 101–128.
Owusu-Mensah, I. (2014). Traditional Leadership and Sustainable Development in Ghana: A Case for Strengthening Capacity. Journal of African Studies and Development, 6(7), 119–127.
Ray, D.I. (1996). Divided Sovereignty: Traditional Authority and the State in Ghana. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 28(37–38), 181–202.
Ubink, J.M., & Amanor, K.S. (2008). Contesting Land and Custom in Ghana: State, Chief and the Citizen. Leiden University Press.
Wily, L.A. (2003). Community-Based Land Tenure Management: Questions and Answers about Tanzania’s New Village Land Act, 1999. IIED Issue Paper No. 120.
