Tanzania, as Miguel points out in an article I’ve been reading, had even abolished the post of the tribal chief in favour of a community council as part of its nation building policy. This really stuck out for me because I imagined the backlash that it could potentially create in my district. The social structure of Ghana is very tied to titles, honours and the established hierarchy. Not only do people love and capitalize on their own titles, but they also take advantage of honours given to those with whom they are well connected. Were the chief to be removed, even in the absence of a challenger, it would not only provoke resistance from the chiefs but also their families and friends. Even some who can claim no connection may resist out of the immense respect community members have for the office.
If this actually went through, a community council would have to be formed to replace the chief because current governing bodies cannot take on his former responsibilities. For example, accusations of witchcraft cannot reasonably be handled by a government office and should not be left to hot-headed community members. Perhaps more relevant is that the chief is currently responsible for divvying up land and settling minor conflicts which will not be settled by the law.
A farmer whose crops are being eaten by another man’s donkey cannot take his claim to court. He cannot afford the fees for one, and also the matter would seem too trivial to involve the justice system. Subsistence farmers are just getting by, though, and even without complications some families are reduced to one meal per day in the lean season. If the donkey continues destroying his crops, he will likely suffer greatly as a result.
Currently, this farmer can take the donkey to the chief’s palace. When the owner is found, he must also come and the chief will usually decide that he is required to pay a fine and somehow control his donkey in the future. If the chieftancy is dissolved, a body must be created that can provide this sort of recourse to community members, and I assume this is the role of the community council (the role of the council hasn‘t been explained in the article, and I have no resources to look it up, but I think this is a fair conclusion to jump to).
Presumably the council will be made up of members from each tribe. This would be a necessity in the beginning (and probably a reasonable precaution in the future) because tribal ties would still dominate over community or national identity at this point in time. If, in the case above, one farmer belonged to the Bimoba tribe, and the other belonged to the Konkoomba tribe, each council member would be biased in favour of his or her kinsman, presenting a challenge to the effectiveness of the council.
You could make the argument that in the selection process one would hope individuals were screened for excessive tribal biases, but in my experience it is unlikely that this would occur. One reason is that many candidates would pursue a position on the council for the sake of the title. If this is the motivation for a council member’s presence, he is less likely to prioritize the ideal of an unbiased council over his own personal values and affiliations. Sadly, many people are well-practiced at saying just what you want to hear, so it is difficult to identify these candidates in the selection process. Rather than using an application/interview/reference procedure, though, you could potentially avoid this problem by selecting members of the community who have historically demonstrated fairness and openness throughout their lives. If that is the case, who does the nominating and selecting? It seems natural that elder members of the community would be chosen based on the social hierarchy. While this is valid older people are statistically more attached to traditional beliefs and tribalism so it increases the likelihood of bias in the council members.
The way I understand it, MoFA addresses this issue by transferring workers out of their home district. While it works for a national ministry, at the community level it would take ownership from the people. Also, local people may be more committed to community progress than outsiders. In response they may not accept the new system at all. Actually, even if council was composed of community members, how do you actually “dissolve” the chieftancy? Wouldn’t there be many who just ignored the imposed change? What exactly did Tanzania do so well that got the chiefs to step down and people to change their behaviour so drastically? I would love to learn more about the implementation of this process in Tanzania.
No comments:
Post a Comment