TRANSPARENCY
Transparency refers to openness in the process of governance – in the election process, policy and decision making, implementation and evaluation, at all levels of government (central and local) and in all branches of government (executive, legislature and judiciary). It is broadly defined as public knowledge of the policies and actions of government, existing regulations and laws and how they may be accessed. It requires making the public account verifiable and official behaviour amenable to scrutiny.
Transparency may not have been an issue when African communities were smaller, simpler and when knowledge derived on personal basis was possible. Transparency may not have been a big issue in the era of nationalist solidarity. We felt we could trust our leaders to do the right thing – even if they did not consult us before the action or report afterwards. But building trust in large and complex institutions and processes and in a multi-national, post nationalist and globalizing world requires maximum investment in transparency.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability focuses on the ability to account for the allocation, use, and control of public assets in accordance with legally accepted standards. In a broader sense, it is also concerned with the establishment and enforcement of rules of corporate governance, avoidance of conflict of interest, and prudent as well as competent discharge of public trust.
Accountability is essential for affirming the obligation of rulers to the ruled, public officials to the public, and government to taxpayers. It is therefore crucial for inducing governmental effectiveness and responsiveness, and generating legitimacy. Accountable governance requires the creation and sustenance of a variety of cross cutting institutions and processes: free, fair and regularly scheduled elections in which incumbents face a real possibility of losing; an independent media strong in investigative reporting; independent judiciary; independent election authority; effective parliamentary oversight, effective public accounts committee of parliament, independent audit body, independent ombudsman and other independent constitutional commissions.
Accountability entails a public right of access to information about the activities of government, the right to petition government and to seek redress through impartial administrative and judicial mechanisms.
PARTICIPATION
Stakeholder participation gives meaning to civil society empowerment, which is vital to making governments and private sectors responsive; and of course, governmental responsiveness in turn fosters trust and legitimacy. Stakeholder participation is crucial for engaging the energies and securing the commitment of citizens for sustained development and for fostering equity in the distribution of the benefits of development. Participation” refers to the involvement of stakeholders and citizens at large in the making, monitoring, review and termination of policies and decisions that affect their lives. It is about the creation and sustenance of mechanisms by which individuals, the private sector and civil society can participate in their own governance. Indeed, in the context of Africa’s “divided societies” and in the face of severe gender inequality, inclusive civic participation is absolutely essential for generating social capital and societal cohesion. It helps to foster trust and reciprocity between citizens and their governments, the state and the private sector, and among the different social and political groupings.
AN ANTI-CORRUPTION ENVIRONMENT
Corruption of course is a universal problem, with complex causes. Its net effect is commonly regarded as negative for all societies, especially developing countries. It leads to economic inefficiencies; distorts development; inhibits long-term foreign and domestic investments; misallocates talents to rent seeking and away from productive activities; induces wrong sectoral priorities and technological choices. It also undermines state effectiveness in the delivery of services, and the protection of the vulnerable and the environment. Corruption promotes economic decay and social and political instability, perverts the ability of the state to foster rule of law, and eventually corrodes trust and undermines legitimacy. These costs mean that sustained African development requires mounting a frontal attack on corruption.
Of course, corruption is highly rewarding for those who engage in it. Therefore, the creation and sustenance of a low corruption environment requires the establishment of effective mechanisms of discovery and punishment. An institutional framework conducive to fighting corruption must promote easy oversight, assessment of wrongdoing and punishment for those convicted of wrongdoing. Equally important, the institutions established to oversee, expose and punish corruption must be insulated from the very actors they are supposed to be controlling (Diamond 1998). Here too, we must build institutions for preventing, detecting and punishing corruption instead of relying on individual morality.
Social Structure
Africa’s traditional institutions and structures have foundations to building the future and also enhancing the traditional institutions of governance within the modern state. Putting people at the centre of development and seeking their collective well-being would promote shared material and non-material well-being, trust within society, citizen participation in decision making processes, and the accountability of state/government officials to the general public. The communitarian nature of the African way of life would be compatible with any concept of development that shifts emphasis from the individual to the community. The extended family system sustained Africa for decades and serves as the foundations to our future development, But Africa’s social structures such as families, lineages, clans or even ethnicities, remain strong social units, and compensate for the absence of organized social welfare schemes. Families lineages play key role in capital accumulation Furthermore, due to the communitarian character of African society, it serves the purpose of democracy, if political power is decentralised and attention paid to the formation of town and district councils. That will ensure the participation of the local people in the decision making process, as is currently happening in Ghana.
Consensual Democracy.
African countries can practice consensual democracy instead of the western one which is known to many African countries. we refer to traditional societies with a centralised authority exercised through the machinery of government headed by a chief or king, such as the Ashanti of Ghana, the Zulu of South Africa, the centralised states, such as the Ashanti and Zulu, operated consensual democracy, which is more difficult to attain than majority decisions operating in post colonial democracies. In cases of dispute settlement, continuous dialogue smoothes the edges of conflict to produce compromises that are
agreeable to all, including the minority. As Wiredu points out, it is easier to secure majority agreement than to achieve consensus. To the Ashanti for example, Majority opinion is not in itself a good enough basis for decision making, for it deprives the minority of the right to have their will reflected in the given decision. It deprives the minority of the right of representation in the decision in question. (Wiredu 1997:307) The system was set up for participation in power, not its appropriation. Here the principle of all inclusiveness leaves no one outside the decision making process.
Non-party Apparatus.
Unfortunately, the non-party political apparatus, as obtains in traditional Africa has often been used in Africa as a pretext for self-perpetuation by African dictators, seeking to avoid or eliminate political opposition that would otherwise expose executive graft, corruption and inefficiency.
Chieftaincy and Modern Governance.
Not only has chieftaincy survived within modern governance; it still constitutes the basis of governance in one African country. Swaziland, the only country in southern Africa where there is no multiparty politics. Swaziland is ruled by King Mswati II on the basis of a 1972 royal decree, that suspended the constitution. Currently, all members of parliament are elected on non-party polls, and cabinet is handpicked. Local chiefs are responsible for all local government functions, including crime, taxes and land allocation. Indeed, among the Akan new titles created include the office of development chief – nkosuohene, a new portfolio directly in charge of developmental projects. Such a
functionary is expected to spearhead local initiative in the provision of social amenities. Even though in modern governance the powers of the chief has been whittled due to politics and the share of power. Even so it is within the institution of House of Chiefs that traditional rulers have been more formally incorporated into the modern structures of
governance.
Chiefs and Constitutions
Since independence, all Ghanaian constitutions have guaranteed the institution of chieftaincy, giving it various degrees of power, but generally making traditional rulers partners in development. The 1959 constitution was written and promulgated in the context of a fierce struggle between traditional rulers and Nkrumah’s CPP, and subsequently whittled the power of chiefs, depriving them of judicial duties, and giving Government the power to accord or withhold recognition. In the case of deforestation, the chief’s ritual links with mother Earth, makes him the most credible personage to caution against her defilement. Traditional respect for the environment was possible through taboos and fines imposed by chiefs on subjects who were seen as denigrating
the land. It is for some of these reasons that Canadian professor, Don Ray, currently
leading a research project on traditional rulers in Ghana, thinks the integration of chieftaincy into modern governance in Africa should provide useful lessons for Canada.
Culture and State Symbolism
It is significant that the state apparatus of most nation states in Africa, includes various cultural motifs and symbolism that capture national ideals and virtues The state staff used in Ghana’s parliament to announce the Speaker and his entourage ,demonstrates Ghana’s commitment to pristine cultural values at the founding of the nation state. The eagle symbolism portrays the features of grace, vigilance, and farsightedness for which the bird is known, and thus advocates same for the Speaker and the legislature. Similarly, one could advocate a careful adoption of cultural symbolism within the state apparatus to reinforce good governance and democracy. The relevant motifs may be based on already existing maxims and cultural symbols that have guided good governance in traditional Africa. The relevant messages: Good governance is like holding a fragile egg; two heads are better than one; and when two mouths meet, crisis is averted.
Chiefs and Contemporary Crises
The process of consolidating Ghana’s democracy in the past ten years, gives
clues of the potential benefits derivable from a judicious blending of culture
and modern governance. The peaceful outcome of Ghana’s 1991/2 transition
to constitutional democracy which had foreshadowed tension and crisis, is
partly attributable to key traditional rulers, who used traditional statecraft,
dialogue, and consensus building to defuse tension in highly volatile
situations. And this is clear indication that traditional and modern principles of
democracy can be successfully blended to achieve good governance in the
contemporary nation state.
Conclusion
From the above it can be said traditional values and institutions have proved very resilient even though the westerners have tried to impose on us their cultures. It can also be deduced that modern trends has not swept out the our traditional values because in every aspect of the African governance and democracy that is being practiced the existence of our cultural values and traditions are felt.
