This Is Senseless!

ascona · 03:43 PM

Can someone make sense of these? Because I am angry about this senseless behaviours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/africa/8555018.stm

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePag....php?ID=178087

cosh · 03-18-2010, 06:16 PM

What do we have to do with our chieftaincy institution? Are they contributing positively to our progress as nations? I think it's time to strip them of the power that they wield in our societies and relegate them to the sphere of cultural and traditional institutions where they rightly belong.

In pursuit of democracy and meritocracy, there should be no place for monarchy. It is time that we seriously deal with this issue

Piedrasalvador · 03-19-2010, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosh

What do we have to do with our chieftaincy institution? Are they contributing positively to our progress as nations? I think it's time to strip them of the power that they wield in our societies and relegate them to the sphere of cultural and traditional institutions where they rightly belong.

In pursuit of democracy and meritocracy, there should be no place for monarchy. It is time that we seriously deal with this issue

When we put it bluntly they will resist it. Let us call it reformation. We are reforming the chieftaincy institution to be practical and modern. You would realise that by the time we have gone a few cycles of reformation, we'll be free from this kinds of *********

I share your frustration

cosh · 03-19-2010, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piedrasalvador

When we put it bluntly they will resist it. Let us call it reformation. We are reforming the chieftaincy institution to be practical and modern. You would realise that by the time we have gone a few cycles of reformation, we'll be free from this kinds of *********

I share your frustration

True, we have to use the right strategy. What if we start with land reforms that will involve them but and the whole community including the district assemblies? I think a lot of their power come from custody(quasi-ownership) of the land. If we slowly and continuously take some of that power away, fewer and fewer will be ready to give their all for an empty chair.

yreginald · **Chieftancy -** 03-22-2010, 12:48 PM

I believe our constitution's entrenched position on chieftancy was based on sound argument then,times are changing with people's appreciation of democratic values rising,we must look at the institution with deeper view.It is not possible now to do away with some of their powers without following constitutionally laid down procedures based on democratic principles.I believe the recent upheaval was caused by security lapse.Every Ghanaian including our chiefs is aware of the supremacy of the laws of Ghana irrespective of ones status.It is the vulnerability of the law enforcers that makes some people throw their weigt about in deception of themselves.If we all understood that democracy goes with responsibility,we would learn to be law abiding.Chiefs,in my opinion,must be given more formal roles to play in the decentralization system of local governance.Already they are helping a lot in conflict resolutions in the rural areas,that can be strengthened with legal backing if necessary.Afterall,the whole world still hails the queen and we see nothing wrong with it.Our chiefs have a history of authocracy,but they have done well in their effort to adapt to modern democracy.Lets criticise them when they air,but they also do our nation a lot of good.

ascona · 03-22-2010, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yreginald

I believe our constitution's entrenched position on chieftancy was based on sound argument then,times are changing with people's appreciation of democratic values rising,we must look at the institution with deeper view.It is not possible now to do away with some of their powers without following constitutionally laid down procedures based on democratic principles.I believe the recent upheaval was caused by security lapse.Every Ghanaian including our chiefs is aware of the supremacy of the laws of Ghana irrespective of ones status.It is the vulnerability of the law enforcers that makes some people throw their weigt about in deception of themselves.If we all understood that democracy goes with responsibility,we would learn to be law abiding.Chiefs,in my opinion,must be given more formal roles to play in the decentralization system of local governance.Already they are helping a lot in conflict resolutions in the rural areas,that can be strengthened with legal backing if necessary.Afterall,the whole world still hails the queen and we see nothing wrong with it.Our chiefs have a history of authocracy,but they have done well in their effort to adapt to modern democracy.Lets criticise them when they air,but they also do our nation a lot of good.

I want to clarify the role of the queen, although she suppose to be the head of state, her role is mainly ceremonial.

Piedrasalvador · 03-22-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yreginald

I believe our constitution's entrenched position on chieftancy was based on sound argument then,times are changing with people's appreciation of democratic values rising,we must look at the institution with deeper view.It is not possible now to do away with some of their powers without following constitutionally laid down procedures based on democratic principles.I believe the recent upheaval was caused by security lapse.Every Ghanaian including our chiefs is aware of the supremacy of the laws of Ghana irrespective of ones status.It is the vulnerability of the law enforcers that makes some people throw their weigt about in deception of themselves.If we all understood that democracy goes with responsibility,we would learn to be law abiding.Chiefs,in my opinion,must be given more formal roles to play in the decentralization system of local governance.Already they are helping a lot in conflict resolutions in the rural areas,that can be strengthened with legal backing if necessary.Afterall,the whole world still hails the queen and we see nothing wrong with it.Our chiefs have a history of authocracy,but they have done well in their effort to adapt to modern democracy.Lets criticise them when they air,but they also do our nation a lot of good.

Yreginald, I have enjoyed your post in all that it expresses. However, I did not get your clear stance. I assume that your last statement “…but they (chiefs) also do our nation a lot of good” is your real take on the mater. On that too, I agree with you. But, how sustainable will this institution be in the process of democratization and associated accountability exigencies?

The current happenings and occasional chaos that result from chiefs’ misdealing are the very issues that betray the falsehood that we have always held, that all was well with a monarchical/state parallel systems of governance.

You wish that chiefs are given a more formal role to play in governance? That’s fine with me. Let people be given jobs if they demonstrate any capacity to discharge those jobs creditably. The big question is: How better are our chiefs than the ordinary citizen?

Granted, the queen is hailed by all. And, you ask, why we can’t hail our monarchs too? My answer is: they are too many of them, good and bad. They steal the peoples land. They are the owners of the cattle that the dreaded Fulanis keep. The Fulanis kill and maim because they know they are the guests of chiefs. Go to any community and see if the traditional courts are patronized by all inhabitants of that community. Find out how much humiliation non-indigenes have to endure in the hands of indigenes/royals. Ask about the outrageous demands of royalties and alms-twisting land tenure systems.

Our chieftaincy institution is older than the formal system of governance. Why would there be the need for the latter if the former served societies interests with equity.

It is difficult to check chiefs with the law. A policeperson in any community would be shown where power lies if he/she dares to arrest a chief. Chiefs can get anybody from the claws of the law if their interests are at stake.

For the sake of brevity let me say: There’re too many monarchs in our society and we can do without all of that. The sporadic bad news is so devastating that they override any good done. Chiefs could still do good to the nation as many ordinary citizens do.

The truth sometimes hurt. I also feel hurt by my opinion because I also stand to benefit from chieftaincy. The fact is, the time for our brand of chieftaincy is almost over.

theomagnusen · 03-23-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piedrasalvador

Yreginald, I have enjoyed your post in all that it expresses. However, I did not get your clear stance. I assume that your last statement “…but they (chiefs) also do our nation a lot of good” is your real take on the mater. On that too, I agree with you. But, how sustainable will this institution be in the process of democratization and associated accountability exigencies?

The current happenings and occasional chaos that result from chiefs’ misdealing are the very issues that betray the falsehood that we have always held, that all was well with a monarchical/state parallel systems of governance.

You wish that chiefs are given a more formal role to play in governance? That’s fine with me. Let people be given jobs if they demonstrate any capacity to discharge those jobs creditably. The big question is: How better are our chiefs than the ordinary citizen?

Granted, the queen is hailed by all. And, you ask, why we can’t hail our monarchs too? My answer is: they are too many of them, good and bad. They steal the peoples land. They are the owners of the cattle that the dreaded Fulanis keep. The Fulanis kill and maim because they know they are the guests of chiefs. Go to any community and see if the traditional courts are patronized by all inhabitants of that community. Find out how much humiliation non-indigenes have to endure in the hands of indigenes/royals. Ask about the outrageous demands of royalties and alms-twisting land tenure systems.

Our chieftaincy institution is older than the formal system of governance. Why would there be the need for the latter if the former served societies interests with equity.

It is difficult to check chiefs with the law. A policeperson in any community would be shown where power lies if he/she dares to arrest a chief. Chiefs can get anybody from the claws of the law if their interests are at stake.

For the sake of brevity let me say: There’re too many monarchs in our society and we can do without all of that. The sporadic bad news is so devastating that they override any good done. Chiefs could still do good to the nation as many ordinary citizens do.

The truth sometimes hurt. I also feel hurt by my opinion because I also stand to benefit from chieftaincy. The fact is, the time for our brand of chieftaincy is almost over.

What a wonderful reply from our moderator. He has literally said all that I had in mind. I will only say our chieftaincy system is far overdue, it must go. The system was relevant then but it is of little use now. If they should be maintain at all, hay should be limited to purely cultural functions.

cosh · 03-23-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yreginald

I believe our constitution's entrenched position on chieftancy was based on sound argument then,times are changing with people's appreciation of democratic values rising,we must look at the institution with deeper view.It is not possible now to do away with some of their powers without following constitutionally laid down procedures based on democratic principles.I believe the recent upheaval was caused by security lapse.Every Ghanaian including our chiefs is aware of the supremacy of the laws of Ghana irrespective of ones status.It is the vulnerability of the law enforcers that makes some people throw their weigt about in deception of themselves.If we all understood that democracy goes with responsibility,we would learn to be law abiding.Chiefs,in my opinion,must be given more formal roles to play in the decentralization system of local governance.Already they are helping a lot in conflict resolutions in the rural areas,that can be strengthened with legal backing if necessary.Afterall,the whole world still hails the queen and we see nothing wrong with it.Our chiefs have a history of authocracy,but they have done well in their effort to adapt to modern democracy.Lets criticise them when they air,but they also do our nation a lot of good.

It is not correct to assume that all over the world people hail the queen, the contrary is true. Even if that was true, it still doesn’t make it right. As a person who strongly believe in equal rights and the fact that all human beings are born with the same rights, I’m strongly against any societal institution that give privileges to people based on their blood line. No true democrat and equity minded person would like to perpetuate such a system as a monarchy, it needs to be faced out. I do not hail or pledge allegiance to any queen or king.

We all acknowledge that the chieftaincy institution played a political, judicial, religious and social roles in our development as societies in the absence of any fair systems. In modern society we’ve developed fairer, merit based, democratic and more effective organizational structures for dealing with society’s issues, yet we are still conserving this archaic institution running parallel to our modern institutions. Assuming that chieftaincy is good, the duplicity of institutions created is counterproductive.

Notwithstanding the little good chiefs might do sometimes, the negatives far outweighs any positives as Piedrasalvador clearly outlined in his submission. Chiefs are a liability to the building of communal piece and togetherness; political and economic development and nation building. To keep themselves relevant, they focus on promoting ethnic allegiance and superiority/importance to the detriment of national unity.

Politicians are wary to tackle them for fear of losing the support of the people under these chiefs. It’s time we take a stand and deal with this. I applaud Piedrasalvador for speaking out even though, as he stated, he stands to benefit from it. How many of our people can do the same. For so long most of us tend to support people, ideas, groups and initiatives depending on how it benefits us, regardless of the effects on the whole society.

We need to slowly and systematically strip this cancer from our political and legal system and keep them as a cultural and historical institution.

Piedrasalvador · 03-24-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosh

It is not correct to assume that all over the world people hail the queen, the contrary is true. Even if that was true, it still doesn’t make it right. As a person who strongly believe in equal rights and the fact that all human beings are born with the same rights, I’m strongly against any societal institution that give privileges to people based on their blood line. No true democrat and equity minded person would like to perpetuate such a system as a monarchy, it needs to be faced out. I do not hail or pledge allegiance to any queen or king.

We all acknowledge that the chieftaincy institution played a political, judicial, religious and social roles in our development as societies in the absence of any fair systems. In modern society we’ve developed fairer, merit based, democratic and more effective organizational structures for dealing with society’s issues, yet we are still conserving this archaic institution running parallel to our modern institutions. Assuming that chieftaincy is good, the duplicity of institutions created is counterproductive.

Notwithstanding the little good chiefs might do sometimes, the negatives far outweighs any positives as Piedrasalvador clearly outlined in his submission. Chiefs are a liability to the building of communal piece and togetherness; political and economic development and nation building. To keep themselves relevant, they focus on promoting ethnic allegiance and superiority/importance to the detriment of national unity.

Politicians are wary to tackle them for fear of losing the support of the people under these chiefs. It’s time we take a stand and deal with this. I applaud Piedrasalvador for speaking out even though, as he stated, he stands to benefit from it. How many of our people can do the same. For so long most of us tend to support people, ideas, groups and initiatives depending on how it benefits us, regardless of the effects on the whole society.

We need to slowly and systematically strip this cancer from our political and legal system and keep them as a cultural and historical institution.

Succinctly delivered. You should have submitted before mine. I agree with you