The advocacy for a defined constitutional roles to be assigned to Traditional Rulers is still on the fronburner, with the mission being pursued unabated, decades after it started.
But, how achievable is this mission? Why is it that, significant progress is yet to made? These questions call for sober reflections, on the efficacy and validity of the advocacy.
There is no gain-saying that, on account of the historical nature of the emergence of Traditional Rulers as community leaders, the general understanding is that, they are essentially expected to function, and perform the role of custodians of culture, norms and traditions of their respective communities. In other words, this is the reason detour of their occupying the throne or stool of leadership in their communities.
It is worth explaining, to point out that, the legitimacy, and respect a traditional ruler gets from his people or “subjects”, depends not only on how well he is conversant with the people’s traditional milieu, but also how exemplary he is, in his private and public conducts, which must be in strict conformity with the community’s way of life. Only then, would he be regarded as either the PARAMOUNT ruler, or ROYAL FATHER, as the case may be, depending on the community.
This implies that Traditional Rulers are leaders in their own rights. They assumed office not through the Western type of democracy. Their mandates are not as a result of popular votes of the people. In other words, they are not elected.
Traditional Rulers are normally, and usually selected by a handful of notably recognized members of their communities, acknowledged to be of impeccable character, who are commonly referred to as “King Makers”. The selection processes are based on adherence to complex, and intricate ethno-relgious norms commonly accepted by all members of the community, or polity.
How then is it feasible to ascribe constitutional role or function for traditional rulers in a larger polity, which is guided by modern laws, devoid of “natural privileges”, which most traditional rulers are accorded once they are proclaimed as leaders, by the King Makers.?
Assuming such roles and functions are ascribed to them, how effective would they be in the performances of the roles? Are their plausible answers to these posers? Me thinks not.
This is because since the era of colonial rule, traditional rulers have been forcefully made to be an integral part of modern government. They were conscripted, against their personal wishes, and that of their “subjects”, to do the biddings of the colonial rulers. A refusal or resistance could only result in dethronement from the seat of power (The Stool) which is regarded as a sacred heritage.
The point is that, because of ancestral and colonial antecedece, Traditional Rulers are schooled to be authotorian, if not dictatorial in taking decisions on issues. This is of course an anathema to modern democratic culture.
Therefore, taking into consideration this sociological reality, the best way out of the inevitable dilemma will be to device an administrative mechanism for effective supervision of the Traditional Rulers, in order to regulate their actions.
Instead of trying to define roles for them, the best thing to do is to fathom an arrangement for monitoring their actions in dealing with the people they are ruling. That way they will be made to adhere strictly to the culture and tradition of their communities. That way also me, the Traditional Rulers will be insulated from politics, and more of the respect they deserve as faather to all. Insisting on defining roles for them in a democracy, will perhaps be a futile exercise.
Insisting on defining roles for traditional rulers in a modern constitution such as as we operate, and couple with the behaviours of our political actors, can only result in undermining the various traditions and cultures of communities across the country.
By Rabiu Abdullahi