The Dagomba, Gonja and Bulsa Political Systems and the Concept of Democracy, Myth or Reality?
- January 2, 2020
- Posted by: RSIS
- Categories: IJRISS, Language and Literature
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume III, Issue XII, December 2019 | ISSN 2454–6186
The Dagomba, Gonja and Bulsa Political Systems and the Concept of Democracy, Myth or Reality?
Dominic Alimbey Dery (Phd)1, Jacob Ibrahim Abdu2, Adam Bawa Yussif (Phd)3
1,2,3Department of Languages and Liberal Studies, Tamale Technical University (Ghana)
Abstract: – The west has always assumed the aura of supremacy when it comes to the practice of democracy. What however, will be contested is any attempt at describe Africans as new entrants to the practice of At best, democracy is no more than a system of government, but in western democracies it has acquired a sacred status, and it is taboo to question it. Democracy, which is the gravamen of this paper. This is what Bhikhu Parekh says of liberalism: Unless, we assume that liberalism represents the final truth about human beings, we cannot indiscriminately condemn societies that do not conform to it. For example, recent Archaeological findings about the existence of functional states in the pre-colonial era, point to the fact that contrary to the age old belief of Africans, these pre-colonial African states were innovative and well organized political institutions of power. States like the Ashanti kingdom, the Zulu kingdom, the Great Zimbabwe, Mapungubwe and Thulamela in South Africa. The study was basically a qualitative one. The study used an ethnographic approach; it is based on how people go about their daily lives. The study was conducted across three different districts and three different ethnic groups. A purposive sample of 50 respondents was purposively sampled, with a breakdown as follows: key informants (5) from each of the three paramountcies making (15), king makers (5) from each of the three paramountcies making (15), kings/chiefs (5) from each of the three paramountcies making (15) and governance experts (5) all adding up to a total of fifty (50) respondents. Because the focus was on chieftaincy, we considered chiefs and king makers as the main actors in the chieftaincy institution. Data were recorded on an audio recorder and in some cases video alongside writing by the researcher. The respondents were assured that this was only to ensure that no details were left out. The key findings are as follows: chieftaincy in the three kingdoms it was revealed practised devolution of power, also decisions were taken in consultation with the chiefs in Council. Council was normally composed of ‘trusted and wise’ chiefs and finally chieftaincy allowed for participation of the ruled. These chiefs will normally create for a where local interest issues were debated and finally accepted before they were promulgated as laws.
Key Words: Political, systems, concepts and democracy
