Understanding ethnicity and politics in ghana's 4 th republic

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI
COLLEGE OF ART AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE
ETHNICITY AND POLITICS IN GHANA‘S 4TH REPUBLIC
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE POLITICAL STUDIES SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BACHELOR OF ARTS
(HONS) DEGREE IN POLITICAL STUDIES
BY
ANTWI EMELDA
NYARKO ABBAM JOHN
NTI BUABENG DENNIS
WOANYAH EYRAM KELVIN
YEWETU OTU ALFRED
APRIL 2014

DECLARATION
We hereby declare that we have wholly undertaken the study herein submitted.
Name Signature Date
ANTWI EMELDA ………………. ……...............
NYARKO ABBAM JOHN ……………… …………….
NTI BUABENG DENNIS …………… ……………..
WOANYAH EYRAM KELVIN ……………. ………………
YEWETU OTU ALFRED …………….. ……………
I have fully supervised the students undertaking the study submitted herein and I confirm that the students have my permission to present it for assessment.
Supervisor Signature Date
Dr. Edward Brenyah (PhD) …………………. ………………….

iii
ABSTRACT
Politics and ethnicity are two things that influence each other especially in Africa and Ghana is no exception. Ethnicity has shaped the political structure and history of our country since the struggle for independence from our former colonial masters. Ethnicity as a tool for the acquisition of political and social power has been used vehemently by political entrepreneurs who seek to capitalize on it in order to clinch unto political power or for the attainment of that power. In this research, the study investigated the role ethnicity plays in the politicking of modern day Ghana especially in the 4th Republic. The study sought to find out the magnitude of power which our politics as a country is being influenced by our ethnicity and looked at governance and leadership as an aspect of politics since most researches have looked at it from electioneering perspectives.
The study shows that there is a synergy between politics and ethnicity in Ghana especially in its 4th Republic since we returned to constitutional rule.
KEY WORDS: ETHNICITY, POLITICS, SOCIAL CLEAVAGE, GOVERNANCE AND LEADERS

iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to our Almighty father, the father of all children on the surface of the earth and all lecturers in the Department of History and Political Studies especially Dr. Brenyah Edward and Dr. Bobmilliar M. George for their enormous guidance and contribution in making this dissertation a success.

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost, we wish to express our utmost gratitude to the Maker and Holder of the universe for seeing us through this far. Indeed, if we speak with joy of this work we do so not with our ability but just by grace He has bestowed on us. Whatever the merits of this study might be, they are largely attributed to all those who took time to advise and assist us.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Edward Brenyah, lecturer of Political Studies, Department of History and Political Studies for not only his willingness to undertake the supervisory role of this work but the compassionate and humane manner with which he supervised this study and particularly for his suggestions, criticisms and assistance.
We are also grateful to our families especially our parents whom we dedicate this work to for their immense support in our education and their patience. We would therefore want to use this opportunity to say a big thank you for all you have suffered and achieved for our sake.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................... II
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... III
DEDICATION ...................................................................................................................... IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................................................V
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. VII
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... VIII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................... 6
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 6
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS OR (NULL) HYPOTHESES ......................................... 6
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................. 7
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS ........................................................................................... 7
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY .......................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND CRITIQUES .................................. 11
2.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 11
2.2 THEORIES OF ETHNICITY AS A SOCIAL CLEAVAGE.................................... 12
2.3 THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP ................................................................................. 14
2.4 THEORIES OF GOVERNANCE ............................................................................. 16
2.5 PROBLEMS OF MEASUREMENT OF ETHNCITY ............................................. 18
CHAPTER 3 METHOD SECTION .................................................................................. 42
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 45
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 45
CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................... 65
5.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................... 65
5.2 RESTATEMENT OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONS ............... 65
5.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 65
5.4 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 66
5.5 DISCUSSIONS .......................................................................................................... 67
5.6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 68
5.7 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 70
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 71
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................ 83

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 ................................................................................................................................. 47
Table 4-2 ................................................................................................................................. 50
Table 4-3 ................................................................................................................................. 51
Table 4-4 ................................................................................................................................. 52
Table 4-5 ................................................................................................................................. 60
Table 4-6 ................................................................................................................................. 61
Table 4-7 ................................................................................................................................. 62
Table 4-8 ................................................................................................................................. 63

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 ................................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 4-2 ................................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 4-3 ................................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 4-4 ................................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 4-5 ................................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 4-6 ................................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 4-7 ................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 4-8 ................................................................................................................................ 61

1
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Ethnicity and politics are two interweaving fabrics which cannot be separated especially within the contextual analyses of the African political systems and its structures, which Ghana; a country within its western part is no exception. Politics and ethnic sentiments or identification (ethnicity) dates back to the pre-colonial and colonial times. For example, the Fantes helped the British to fight against the Ashanti perceived hegemony during the colonial time. The word “ethnicity” has divergent definitions as some people perceive it as realistic; while others see it as psychological and emotional feelings of belonging to one group as an entity with a common history, language, customs, traditions, norms and practices. It is then a feeling of us as an ―in-group‖ and them as ―out-group‖.
Bulmer (1996) defines the word ethnic group as:― a collectivity within a larger population having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared past, and a cultural focus upon one or more symbolic elements which define the group‘s identity, such as kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to the group.‖
According toEriksen 1993, ―ethnicity is often said to be an irreducibly dual phenomenon in that, by definition, it comprises aspects of both symbolic meaning and instrumental utility. Ethnic identity offers the individual a sense of belonging and contributes to group cohesion, while ethnic organization serves the mundane interests of its members (or at least its leadership). Ethnicity appears whenever there is an ongoing, conventionalized relationship between individuals who conceive of themselves as belonging to culturally distinctive groups with different origins‖.

2
Ethnicity is about collective identification based on perceived cultural differentiation. Ethnicity is concerned with culture (shared meanings) but it is rooted in-and a product of social interactions, especially across boundaries. Ethnicity is neither fixed nor static, any more than the culture of which it is an aspect. Ethnicity is collective and individual externalized in institutions and patterns of social interactions and internalized in personal self-identification. It is important to know that a sense of shared similarity is no less significant than the construction of a sense of difference from external others. Ethnicity may be emotionally authentic or tactically and strategically manipulable, or indeed both simultaneously. These all suggest that, ethnic identifications do not mean anything in themselves. They are not ‗things‘ sui generis (in a class or group of its own).
Politics is very broad but its usage in this study narrows ―politics‖ to governance and leadership. Politics on the other hand, involves processes by which a group of people (perhaps with divergent opinions or interests) reach collective decision-making generally regarded as binding on the group, and enforced as a common policy.
Governance can be thought of as: ―the systems and processes concerned with ensuring the overall direction, effectiveness, supervision and accountability of an organization‖. Governance can be defined as the administrative and process-oriented elements of governing. Most often than not, the word ―governance‖ is interchanged with the word ―government‖. Government refers to the machinery that steer the affairs of the state and it is made up of mainly three distinct arms: executive, legislature and the judiciary.
According to the Governance Analytical Framework (GAF), governance can be defined in the broader terms. It refers to the ―process of interactions and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem, that lead to the creation, reinforcement or reproduction of social norms and institutions‖. Also, according to the United Nations Development Programme‘s Regional Project on Local Governance for Latin America

3
(UNDP-RPLGALA): “Governance has been defined as the rules of the political system to solve conflicts between actors and adopt decisions (legality).It has been used to describe “the proper functioning of institutions and their acceptance by the public” (legitimacy). And it has been used to invoke the efficacy of government and the achievement of consensus by democratic means (participation)”.
Leadership can also be described as the process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task. Leadership in this sense is the ability to have people buying into one‘s idea or vision in order to materialize that idea or vision. Haunschild, et al. 2009 describe leadership as “an exercise in language that results in the realization of a future that wasn’t going to happen anyway which future fulfills or (contributes to fulfilling) the concerns of the relevant parties”. This definition espouses the notion that, leadership focuses on the future including a focus on fundamental concerns of the relevant parties. Interesting, the definition of leadership by Sun Tzu is very intriguing because he defined leadership as ―a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage and discipline‖. He further argues that reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness: exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness: fixation on trust results in folly: dependence on the strength of courage results in violence and excessive discipline and sternness in command results in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, and then one can be leader‖.
The issue of politics in Ghana is a very interesting one since there are so many factors which go into our daily politicking as a country. Some of the factors which influence our politics include religion, culture and ethnicity which have a very powerful impact on political activities in the country.
Additionally, balance of power and distrust among different ethnic groupings has always been a key to understanding Ghanaian politics. There are about 49 major ethnic groupings

4
in Ghana comprising the Akans, Mole-Dagbani, Ewes, Gas, Guans, Grusi, among others. But interestingly in Ghana, our politics is divided on the lines of the Akans versus the Non- Akans.
Ethnicity, it must be emphasized thrives on half-truths and perceptions as much as historical facts and is sustained by stereotypes and prejudice which help to explain why ethnicity remains a crucial weapon for political mobilization (Frempong 2004).
Furthermore, ethnicity may exhibit a number of paradoxes: firstly, while ethnicity rests on culturally specified practice and given sets of beliefs, in reality an entire ‗pure‘ group is extremely rare. Secondly, ethnic groups can generate forces of moderation, constitute a form of social capital and advance the private fortunes of their members; but they may also occasionally engage in acts of violence, destroying wealth and discouraging the formation as a single group (Rothberg 2000;Ayoob 2001). Thirdly, contrary to the conventional wisdom that is the political elites who manipulate ethnicity for their own interests. Ethnicity acts as a pole around which groups members can mobilize and compete for control of state power, economic resources, positions, contract awards and constitutional protection (just like any other interest group)(Rothschild 1997:4).
It is essential in any analysis of ethnicity to consider the crucial role of the State.
 The State is the turf on which ethnic group politics is played. It is the arena for interaction, encounter, corporation, conflict and struggle over the exercise of power and the distribution of societal resources.
 The State‘s political institutions and capabilities structure ethno political groups‘ choices about policies to be pursued and the means to do so; whether to participate, protest or rebel.

5
 When the State is viewed as a prize in the hands of a particular ethnic group, it creates distrust and insecurity and makes it difficult for the State to be perceived as an impartial arbiter by the other ethnic groups.
The study is interested in why the labeling of a particular government or administration or political party as favoring a particular ethnicity group. Sometimes the word ―tribe‖ is be used to replace ethnicity since there is virtually no sharp difference in the usage of the two concepts in Ghanaian politics. Specifically, the study is interested in knowing why the Mahama-Amissah-Arthur administration as a government full of the Northern tribes, why President Dramani Mahama used$60 million of a World Bank loan of $100 million loan on projects in the northern sector of the country which are mostly made up of the ethnic inclinations of the three(3) Northern regions for which he is a member; why the erstwhile administration of the NPP under former president, J.A. Kuffour was tagged as an administration of Asante-Akyem (Akans); and why was the Ashanti Region the first to benefit from the 10 billion Cedis for the Youth Fund disbursed as loans to skilled youth under the NPP administration. In this regard, this study is interested in finding out what really influence leaders to pursue certain policies which favors a particular ethnicity group. For example, why the Kuffour administration had26 sector ministers out of which 18 were Akans (a third of which were Ashantis) and 8 Non-Akans (3 Mole-Dagbanis, 2 Ewes and 3 Gas).
It is as a result of these, that the study is interested in finding what causes the labeling of our politics especially in the 4th Republic on these lines. The study is very interested in fishing out why the influence of ethnicity plays a key role in our daily politics. In this case, the study intends to find out the magnitude of influence which ethnicity has on the governance and leadership of a particular administration in Ghana. Specifically the study seeks to

6
examine why people feel that, a particular government belongs to a particular ethnic grouping and not the entire nation as a whole?
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The study examines why there exist strong relationships between ethnicity and politics (that is, governance and leadership) in understanding Ghanaian politics. It further investigates how leadership and governance are being influenced by ethnic identifications and sentiments.
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to explore ways in which Ghana as a country can use its ethnic differences in shaping its politics to bring about visible socio-economic transformations that will raise the living standards of its citizenry.
Specifically, the study examines how ethnicity influences on our politics. In addition, the study also investigates how ethnicity is manifested. Lastly, it examines how ethnicity can serve as a political tool without causing conflicts, tensions, dissatisfactions and instability in Ghana.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS OR (NULL) HYPOTHESES
 It is hypothesized that, ethnicity has an influence on national and local governmental politics.
 Why does the invocation of ethnic identity impact governance and leadership?
 How does ethnicity influence the actions and thoughts of political leaders in authority in the political system?

7
 To what extent can one say that, the actions of political actors especially leaders are informed by their ethnic inclinations?
 Does the use of ethnicity as a political tool cause harmony in the political system?
 How can Ghana ensure that, the use of ethnicity as a political cleavage does not cause dissatisfaction, instability, violence and conflict?
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study shows that, indeed ethnicity and politics are two variables that cannot be separated if Ghanaian politics is to be understood. It further shows that, the use of ethnicity as a political tool of social cleavage can be possible in the politics of Ghana without causing dissatisfaction, instability and violence.
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS
 ETHNICITY: The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. It is the measure of cultural affiliation. It is the state of belonging to a human group having racial, religious, and linguistic and certain other traits in common.
 POLITICAL SYSTEM: It is defined as the set of formal legal institutions that constitute a government or a state. It is a set of processes of interaction or as a subsystem of the social system interacting with other nonpolitical subsystems, such as the economic system. A political system consists of the formal and informal structures which manifest the State's sovereignty over a territory and people. Political system is a particular definition role and law norms and an allocation of rights and duties historically determined through conflict, a

8
balancing of powers. Those who fill these roles, who have the right to command others, are the political elite.
 SOCIAL CLEAVAGE: It is defined as the division of voters into voting blocs. The preliminary assumption is that voters don‘t come in predefined groups of pros and cons for or against a certain subject. Ballot analysis assumes that voters opt for a certain party, or decide for the solution or option that comes closest to their own position. Cleavage separates the voters into advocates and adversaries on a certain issue, or voting for a certain party. Cleavage is the line that divides political parties into supporters and opponents. It is operationally explained as the division of individuals into distinct classes or groups.
 POLITICS: The part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the argumentative of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. It is operationally defined as the art of government or governing especially of a political entity such as a nation, and the administration and control of its external and internal affairs.
 REPUBLIC: A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. It is operationally defined as a state where the people are politically independent and sovereign by themselves and have a president.

9
 GOVERNANCE: The use of institutions, structures of authority and even collaboration to allocate resources and coordinate or control activity in society or economy. It operationally refers to the processes of running a government.
 LEADERSHIP: The action of leading a group of people or a society or organization. Leadership involves establishing a clear vision, sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly, providing the information, knowledge and methods to realize that vision, and coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and stakeholders.
 POLITICAL CLEAVAGE: The division of people into different classes in the political system. ―Political cleavage is the national, ethnic, linguistic and religious divisions that affect political allegiances and policies‖ (Conservapedia).
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
Chapter 1 presents the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions or null hypotheses, significance of the study, definition of terminologies.
Chapter 2 contains the review of related literature and research related to the problem being investigated. The methodology and procedures used in gathering the data for the study are presented in Chapter 3. The results of analyses and findings to emerge from the study will be in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a summary of the study and findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, a discussion and recommendations for future study.

11
Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND CRITIQUES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Most of the researches conducted in pursuance to ethnicity and politics in Ghana especially in the Fourth Republic have bordered on the negatives( La Porte et al. 1999: Wa Wamwere 2003) that would emanate if Ghana allows the usage of ethnicity as a political cleavage(Mahama, 2013: Kimenyi 2003, Wa Wamwere 2003). Some of the writings on ethnicity and politics have sort to demonize the use of our differentials as a people in our everyday politicking especially during the 4th Republic and have largely been centered on voting patterns during elections. Majority of the scholars argue that, ethnicity is what mostly influence our voting patterns as a people but they fail to admit that, it is not ethnicity that has been the major factor for our voting patterns in electing leaders in government but different issues especially the issue of bringing rapid socioeconomic developments into the life of the citizenry influence voting patterns. Concomitant to that, most literatures have not been able to overwhelm convince readers why ethnicity as a political cleavage shouldn‘t be allowed when it comes to politics.
Ethnicity acts as a pole around which group members can mobilize and compete effectively for state control of power, economic resources, positions, contracts awards and constitutional protection (Rothschild 1997:4;Adam 1984).
Some people think democracy leads to more ethnic conflicts. Such school of thought argues that , as more people participate in the political process and differences between ethnic groups are articulated openly, political leaders in multiethnic societies may be tempted to use ethnicity as a measure to obtain electoral support (Buzz: 2002:1). In a climate of uncertainty, a policy of uniting an ethnic group against real or imagined political threat of

12
whipping up ethnic animosity against another ethnic group becomes expedient or convenient. Whether use effectively to dash out the ambitions of others or offensively to achieve their own end, ethnicity is primary as a label that is used for political advantage (Psalides-Parlmetter 2000:238).
Unfortunately, there is little to be found when it comes to relating ethnicity to governance in the Ghanaian political system especially in its relations to government policies, programs, styles and regimes of the 4th Republic. However, a better assessment of the impact of ethnicity on politics in the 4th Republican government of Ghana can be obtained by examining the theories of ethnicity, leadership and governance.
2.2 THEORIES OF ETHNICITY AS A SOCIAL CLEAVAGE
There are essentially three main theories but out of which two are very dominant in analyzing the meaning and nature of ethnicity.
The first school of thought of ethnicity is that of the “PRIMORDIALISM or PERENNIALISM‖. This theory argues that, nations are ancient, natural phenomenon. This school of thought holds that, members of the same ethnic group have a common bond that determines their personal identity and ―turns the group into a natural community that is older than the modern (state)‘ (Van de Goor 1994:18; Ake 2003:93). They emphasize the idea of ethnic identification as a result of inherent long standing and usually unchanging sets of alliances which often defy rationality and logic explanation (Smith 2000:36). With this school of thought, ethnicity is an ascribed identity or assigned status, something inherited from one‘s ancestors or right at birth which can never be changed (Geertz 1963:109-110).To primordialists, it is the primordial bonds or factors such as lineage and cultural ties that give rise to sustain ethnicity (Geertz 1973; Isaac1975; Van den Berghe 1981).

13
The second school of thought is the INSTRUMENTALISTS, which became popular or prominent in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States of America in the debate about ethnic persistence. This school of thought sees ethnicity as an instrument or strategic tool for gaining resources. According to this theoretical framework, people become ethnic and remain ethnic when their ethnicity yields significant returns to them. In other words, ethnicity exists and persists because it is useful. The Instrumentalists again see ethnicity essentially as a means for people, especially leaders to pursue their own purposes such as ‗forming, mobilizing and manipulating groups of people for political ends‘ (Van de Goor 1994:18, Ake 2003:94). They explain ethnicity in terms of a variety of political, economic and institutional structures which mobilizes, alter and even create an ethnic identity in the service of political goals (Smith 2000:36; Conteh-Morgan 1997:79 and Moynihan 1975). The functional advantages of ethnicity range from ‗the moral and material support provided by ethnic networks to political gains made through ethnic voting bloc‘ (Portes and Bech 1985, 24).
For example, Orlando Patterson (1975, 348) asserted that ―The strength, scope, viability and bases of ethnic identification are determined by, and used to serve the economic and general class interest of individuals‖. Hence, interests are the sole determinants of ethnic identity, and ethnic affiliation tends to be transient or short in duration and situational as the benefits of ethnicity shifts.
The last school of thought or theoretical framework on ethnicity is the CONSTRUCTIVISM. This theoretical framework was crafted by Jean Piaget (1967), who articulated mechanisms by which knowledge is internalized by learners. Starting in the 1970s, the school of the Constructivists began to ascend. The Constructivists views are in sharp contrast to that of the Primordialism. This school of thought has advanced three strong arguments. First, ethnicity is a socially constructed identity that is something which

14
was socially created. It is upon this first view that, the name constructionists come to bear. Secondly, as an extension of a constructed identity, ethnic boundaries are flexible and changeable. Ethnicity is dynamic. Lastly, ethnic identification is constructed by society. Ethnicity is a reaction to changes in social environment. Jonathan Sarna, a historian developed the so-called “theory of ethnicization‖. Saran maintained that, ethnicity is created by two conditions: ascription and adversity. In here, ascription refers to the assignment of an individual to a particular ethnic group by outsiders such as government, churches, schools, media, natives, and other immigrants. Adversity includes hardship, prejudices, discrimination and hostility. Saran contends that, adversity forces members of the same group to unite and help create group identity and solidarity.
2.3 THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
Attribute pattern approach: This theoretical framework argues that, the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables. In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that, integrated constellation or combination of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness.
Behavioral and style theories: This school argues that, leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego (David McClelland, 1967). It argues leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluate the behavior of successful leaders, and identify broad leadership styles. The failure of tracing ‗‗gold‘‘ in the trait ‗‗mines‘‘ urged researchers to examine the behaviors that specific leaders exhibited. Behavioral studies of leadership aim to identify behaviors that differentiate leaders from non-leaders (Robbins, 1998). Behavioral theories of leadership support that a set of particular behaviors that can be named as a style of leadership. Leadership style refers to a distinctive behavior adopted

15
by persons in formal positions of leadership (Campell, et al., 1966) and several studies were conducted to identify those.
Contingency theory: The contingency view of leadership emerged from systems theory and its impact on organizational and administrative theory. According to this model, specific leader behaviors relate to group performance and satisfaction. In order to achieve this, certain variables interact with each other such as the leader himself, the position he holds, group members, internal, and external environment of the organization. A successful match between the leader and the group‘s performance and satisfaction is ‗‗contingent‘‘ upon these variables. Three situational variables intervene between the leader‘s style and effectiveness which are leader-member relations, task structure, and power position. Groups are classified as either favorable or unfavorable based on these criteria (Monahan &Hengst, 1982).
This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics and that no single optimal psychological profile of a leader exists. According to this theory, ―what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions‖ (Hemphill 1949).
Trait theory: This theoretical framework argues that, leadership is based an individual attributes. The study of special traits of leaders emerged from the belief that leadership and abilities such as intelligence were inherited. In addition to intelligence other factors such as birth order, status and liberal parents highly correlate with leadership abilities (Carlson, 1996).
Visionary Leadership: Visionary leadership is the ability to create and express a realistic, attainable, and attractive vision of the future for organizations which grow continuously. Visionary leaders should create inspiring and innovative visions for their organizations rendering them credible in the eyes of the people in the organization at the same time.

16
Visionary leaders have three qualities, which are related to their effectiveness. First, is the ability to explain and articulate the vision to the others? Second, is to express the vision not just verbally but through the leader‘s behavior. Third, is to communicate the vision to different leadership contexts.
2.4 THEORIES OF GOVERNANCE
Governance is a new phenomenon that is now gaining ascendancy in the academia and so little theories are known about it. In this study, we will be looking at three categories of governance theories or school of thoughts and they are: Policy Network theory, Rational Choice theory, and ―Interpretive‖ theory.
Rational Choice theory: This school of thought draws on microeconomic analysis, with its attempt to unpack social life in terms of individual actions and to explain individual actions in terms of rationality, and especially utility maximization. The rational choice theorists are often more interested in exploring cases where institutions or norms are honored even in the absence of a higher authority to enforce them. Rational choice theory attempts to explain all social phenomena by reference to the micro level of rational individual activity. It unpacks social facts, institutions and patterns of rule entirely by analyses of individual action. It models individuals acting on the assumption that they adopt the course of action most in accord with their preferences. Rational choice theorists furthermore, argue that the absence of any effective higher authority means that such institutions have to be conceived as self- enforcing. Again, they argue institutions structure people‘s strategic interactions with one another; stable institutions influence individuals‘ actions by giving them reasonable expectations about the outcome of the varied courses of action from which they might choose.

17
Interpretive theories: Interpretive approaches to governance often emphasize contingency. They reject the idea that patterns of rule can be properly understood in terms of a historical or social logic attached to capitalist development, functional differentiation or even institutional settings. Instead, they emphasize the meaningful character of human actions and practices. It simply means that, because individuals act on beliefs, ideas, or meanings- whether conscious or not- their actions can be understood properly only if the significant meanings are grasped. Some of the interpretive approaches suggest that beliefs, ideas or meanings are more or less uniform across a culture or society. Hence, they inspire studies of distinct patterns of governance associated with diverse cultures. Other interpretive approaches also place greater emphasis on the contests and struggles over meanings that they take to constitute so much political activity. Hence, they inspire studies of the different traditions or discourses of governance that are found within any given society.
Policy network theory: This theory argues that, governance is simply self-organizing, inter-organizational networks that are charged with policy-making (Rhodes 1996, 660; Stoker 1998a, 18). Any setting with a plurality of actors and no formal control system that can dictate the relationships between the actors is a governance network (Chhotray& Stoker 2009, 3). Policy-making involves multiple organizations, from the government as well as from the outside. The policy issues are complex, and even defining the policy problem is demanding (Stoker 2000, 92). Setting policy goals, defining solutions, and implementation all require resources that are not held by any single organization, resulting in interdependence of the organizations. The interdependence in turn provides the organizations in the network considerable autonomy from central control.

18
2.5 PROBLEMS OF MEASUREMENT OF ETHNCITY
Ethnicity has proven to be a very difficult concept to define with much precision. Indeed, those who have approached the task have not been able to achieve a consensus. Most usages are both vague and ambiguous in their application to empirical research. What most scholars consider to be examples of ethnicity, others would consider being cases of such other variables are regionalism, religious-sectarianism, class conflict and even sheer ―opportunism‖ (Ross 1979:3).
Franck and Rainer (2009) provide an assessment of ethnic favoritism in Sub-Saharan Africa. They looked at eighteen (18) countries and focused on primary education and infant mortality of various ethnic groupings under different ethnic leadership in a period of fifty (50) years. They argued that, ethnic favoritism effects are large and widespread and that, this causes underdevelopment in these African countries. They went on to say that, ethnic favoritism are common in states whose governments have control greatly over fiscal resources but interestingly, they argued that, states of ethnic groups speaking structurally unrelated languages or live in more segregated locations don‘t display higher levels of ethnic favoritism.
Moreover, ethnic diversity according to Franck and Rainer (2009) is related to bad economic policies, slow economic growth and low levels of per capita income. States of diverse ethnics were found to have poor quality governance, inadequate provision of public goods and civil wars. (Le Porte et al.1999; Alesina et al. 2003; Montaloo and Reeynal- Querol, 2003). Ethnic diversity leads to costly rent-seeking by different ethnic groupings (Easterly and Levine, 1997) and generate conflict over the provision of public goods (Alesina, Baqir and Easterly, 1999). In other words, politically domineering ethnic groups will use their powers to provide economic benefits to their own members. In ethnically heterogeneous societies, it is common for the group that ascends the throne of power to

19
fashion government policies and expropriate the production of goods to their members and prevent outsiders from benefiting.
Ethnicity is used as an exclusion tool and the dominant ethnic groups redistribute resources towards their own members (Fearon, 1991; Caselli and Coleman, 2006).
In addition, they argued that whereas theoretical arguments link bad economic performances of African states to ethnic favoritism, there is no systematic empirical evidence that members of the ethnic groups actually benefits from having their leaders in power. In their work, they estimated that on average primary school attendance, completion and literacy of the leaders ethnic groups grew by 2.5 percent and reduced their infant mortality by about 0.5 percent. They argued that, leaders‘ ethnicity have strong effects on education, infant mortality or both in their ethnic groups.
In conclusion, ethnic favoritism is more alarming in states whose governments collect more revenues and have greater resources to spend on the provision of public goods; that, the ordinary members of ethnic groups get benefits from their leaders when in power and that, leaders may deliver even larger favors to narrow subgroups of other ethnic groupings.
Kimenyi (2003) argued ethnicity is an important institution and one which impacts on the quality of governance. He argues further that, ethnic heterogeneity results in under- provision of non-excludable public goods and such societies are associated with the provision of patronage goods. In addition, Kimenyi argued governments provide public goods because left to private individuals, such goods need not be provided. Governments step in to correct the inefficiencies of the markets with the intention of maximizing social welfare and do so efficiently; but surprisingly governments‘ provision in itself is marred by numerous inefficiencies and short-comings called government failure (Buchanan and Tullock, 1962; Olson 1965).

20
He explained the failure of government by the use of interest group theory of government. This theory argues that, public policy makers are not benevolent maximizers of social welfare as assumed by the market failure model but rather, they are motivated by self- interests. In addition, the provision for the public is subjected to rent-seeking which associates with waste of resources and other inefficiencies (Krueger, 1975; Tallock, 1967). He went further to say other factors explain the inefficiencies of government provision and focuses on the ―principal agent problems‖ inherent in public provision. The ―principal agent problems‖ arise from the fact that voters are not motivated to invest resources to monitor the behavior of public officials.
Moreover, he argued public provision lacks well-defined property rights because voters are numerous and dispersed. No single person has sufficient wealth at stake to make it worthwhile to monitor government officials on a day-to-day basis. Interestingly, he goes beyond to say that the degree of ethnic fractionalization influence the quality of governance in terms of provision of public goods. One way ethnicity could increase the probability of government failure is by increasing the transactions costs of achieving cooperation and thus weakening institutions of governance. The failure to incorporate heterogeneity in the design of institution leads to the failure of states governments of diverse presence of ethnic groups. Thus by ignoring the importance of ethnicity in institutional design, many ethnically fractionalized states are not suited to harmonize ethnic claims (Kimenyi, 1998).
Ethnic groups lower the transaction costs of solving ―prisoner‘s dilemma‖ and therefore are suited to provide local public goods but they complicate collective action translating into outcomes that make all members of the society worse off. Ethnically diverse societies are prone to corruption and poor governance and slow economic growth (Kimenyi, 1987; Easterly and Levine, 1997; Mauro, 1995; Mbaku, Ogbese and Kimenyi, 2001). Identifying

21
with one‘s ethnic group is highly valued and resources are devoted to make certain that members of the group continue to identify with that group.
Moreover, Kimenyi argued good governance in the provision of public goods requires an institutional framework that reduces the cost of cooperation. Such institutional framework could be supplied by experience built up through repeated interactions, a high level of social cohesion, trust or a constitutional and legal regime characterized by effectiveness and legitimacy (Meagler, 2003). Ethnic groups that control government adopt strategies that make it difficult for other groups to capture the instruments of wealth transfers. The competition to control the instruments of wealth transfers have been intense carrying ethnic conflicts and this explains the continued state of conflict and political instability in Africa.
In conclusion, Kimenyi argued that, ethnic fractionalization causes corruption, low public goods provision and participation, exclusion and instability and that ethnic identification in politics is revealed by voting patterns because the state fails to insure nonexcludability which make people turn to their ethnic communities because these ethnic societies serve as a sort of alternative statehood for the provision of public goods and this process can initiate a vicious cycle in which ethnic communalism breeds attitudes of illegitimacy which in turn reduce the effectiveness of the state thus, intensifying the attitude of illegitimacy.
Thomas Bossuroy (2011) looked at 2004 presidential elections of Ghana in his analyses of his work. To him, heterogeneity of the populace deter institutions capacity suitable for economic growth and poverty reduction and brings possible rivalry and non-cooperative relationships between groups leading to a lower access of development because of the difficulty they have to work together. The rivalry between groups also impacts the aggregate social choice generated by democratic processes.
Compromise, balance of power and distrust between ethnic groups have always been critical in the understanding of the Ghanaian politics. Ghana is a multi-party system which

22
has two parties dominating the system and they are the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and National Democratic Congress (NDC). He went on further to argue that, economic opposition between the two (2) leading parties may be one of the motives for voters choosing between them as well as ethnic opposition. The NPP represent the Akan tradition and is mostly supported by the heart of the Ashanti Region whilst the NDC gathers support from the Northern Regions and from the Volta Region where non-Akan people are majority.
The level of urbanity may also play a key role in structuring the political field in Ghana as he argues on. In his analyses, the NPP-NDC gained about 97percent in the 2004 Presidential Elections. He found out that, the geographical patterns of votes clearly reveal it in the votes garnered by the NPP among Akan areas and NDC in the non-Akan areas. Ethnicity had a very strong effect on the patterns of votes. The NPP had almost 70 percent of the variance of shared votes when Akan alone is looked at regressively; socioeconomic variables accounted 55percent of the NPP vote pattern.
In conclusion, Bossuroy argued that political participation is determined by the socioeconomic conditions of voters, level of education and the remoteness of the residence areas are determinants of participation. Ethnicity appeared to poorly explain the evolution of votes when analyzing elections though it plays an important role in the structural patterns of voting distribution.
Alabi (2007) also argued ethnicity play a major role in the acceptability of political marketing approaches of partisan politics in Ghana. He argues that, when looking at the activities and functions of political marketing, the political product (the political party) should be designed to fit into both the social and economic contexts of the target audience whose votes that particular political party is seeking. The characteristics of the political product include which personalities, philosophy or ideology, manifesto, past performance,

23
dependability, reliability and brand name or image can be said to determine the acceptability of that product within the defined environment.
The beliefs, economic and social dispositions of the people are fundamental to ethnicity. The satisfaction of the needs and aspiration of the voters and the people themselves are the major determinants of accepting a political party. The acceptance of a political party to a larger extent is tied to how the people, their beliefs, economic and social disposition identify with a particular political party based on the party‘s characteristics in terms of party leadership, party structure, ideology, party‘s image and past performance. Alabi identifies the political market as a conglomeration of voters, challenges and incumbents. The political market refers to anywhere political parties and electorates meet or communicate to sell and buy political products. The electorates are the buyers while the political parties are the sellers within that surrounding; and there are also competitors of their own strengths and weaknesses except in one party state.
He went on to say that, the important things to consider in political marketing are what product, how the product is presented, where is the communication taking place. In political marketing, the battle field is the mindset of the voter whereas in a society, where ethnicity and communality plays a vital role, the political market is said to be the mindset of the floating voter given that the party already has a strong base. This is where the role of ethnic identification falls in political marketing. Ethnicity pervades all societies and as a result is essential for every political marketing approach although to a lesser degree in a more diverse environment.
Political parties learn much about people‘s identities and culture in order to pitch candidates to win the acceptability of such people. Likewise the performance and acceptability of political parties among a specific ethnic grouping is fixed to perception, appreciation and

24
how the ethnic group identifies with the party. Ethnic sentiments are one of the important tools affecting democratization and nation-building.
Complexity of ethnicity in Ghanaian grass root politics is due to the fact that, ethnic groups are not bond not only by kinship but also principles (NyuotYoh, 2004). Alabi further described Ghanaian political experience as a chameleonic experience because it has been full of regime changes both democratic and authoritarian. Yalae (2006) indicates the entrenchment of ethnicity in Ghana‘s politics is due to the fear of perpetual ethnic domination-the fear of ethnic subjugation by another ethnic group. Alabi went further to say the decision of leadership of parties especially the selection of flag bearer and vice presidential candidate is made in consideration of which ethnic card to play and cites the NPP as an example. No part of Ghana is ethnically homogenous and the urban areas are the most ethnically mixed due to migration of people in search of employment.
His analyses of voting pattern indicates that, aside Ashanti, Volta and Western Regions, no political party can consider any of the urban districts or constituencies as a stronghold due to the ethnically diverse nature of these constituencies. This implies that, the effect of ethnicity is more common in rural areas.
In conclusion, Alabi argued that for any party to win any presidential election it needs an ethnic base as a springboard and the parties with very strong ethnic support bases are those that have stood the test of time no matter the marketing tools used. Strongholds are considered pre-requisites for multi-party systems imperative for the sustenance of political parties.
Oelbaum (2010) in his paper consider the linkage between the spatial dimension of poverty and war in the conflict-prone Northern areas of Ghana. The research centers on one specific conflict, the ―Guinea Fowl War‖ of 1994 which he describes as the most violent episode in Ghana. He specifically looked at the relationship between changes in poverty, interethnic

25
inequality and warfare in that region. He blamed government mixed signals about its intention for the region to have played a critical role as a driver for the conflict; for inflaming the aspirations and expectations of non-centralized groups, while generating resistance and anger from chiefs to whom government was ultimately beholden.
He went on further to say that, the widening of economic inequalities between distinct reference groups caused the war. Conflict emerges as a result of development and poverty reduction, and says institutional arrangements could be used to prevent and contain violence. According to Oelbaum, the war affected 8 administrative districts, and led to the burning and destruction of four hundred and forty-two (442) separate villages, which resulted in the displacement of about two hundred thousand (200,000) people.
Again, he argued there is a substantial relationship between warfare and poverty reduction. According to World Bank(2004),after a typical civil war of seven(7)years duration, incomes are approximately fifteen(15) percent lower than they would have been if the war had not happened, which implies a thirty(30)percent increase in the incidence of absolute of poverty. The most proximate cause of the ―Guinea Fowl War‖ was the petition launched by the Konkomba Youth Association (KOYA) and a Konkomba sub-chief to the National House of Chiefs which sought to cause the elevation of the chief of Saboba (a Konkomba) to paramount status. The petition was rejected by the Dagomba paramouncy. The environment surrounding the petition was exacerbated by the actions of the central government in particular President Rawlings, who had indicated in 1991 that ―minority groups would be justified in taking up arms to defend their autonomy‖.
A combination of signals of official permissiveness, rumors of war, the intractability of the issues and the seemingly inability to find alternatives to violence, gave rise to a form of security dilemma that manifested in a deadly ethnic war (Pul, 2003).

26
Collier (2001) argues people mostly identify with their kin groups, ethnic groups or religious groups, than with the nation and does this by using two terminologies- ethnic dominance and ethnic fragmentation. The power of such sub-national identities is commonly regarded as a course. Societies divided by ethnicity are seen as less likely to reach cooperative solutions, and more likely to victimize minorities. Civil wars can be viewed as the extreme manifestation of the more general phenomenon of dysfunctional politics and have social repercussions far beyond the boundaries of the affected state. This implies ethnic divisions make cooperation more difficult and victimization more likely. Collier argues that to solve sub-national ethnic identifications, governments could engage in the sort of virulent nationalism which Europe used in its own building of national identities. Alternatively, governments could accede to the demand for ethnic self-determination creating many new states.
Ethnic diversity neither increases the risk of civil war nor reduces economic growth. Multi- ethnic societies can usually be socially and economically fully viable. Ethnicity as a basis for identity is a social rather than psychological phenomenon. It is seen as cultural and political phenomenon. As a cultural phenomenon, ethnicity is highly persistent i.e. people choose transmit their culture by marrying within their own group (Bisin and Verdier, 2000). As a political phenomenon, ethnic diversity is considerably more fluid. It is indeed implied by ‗national building‘.
Moreover, he argued basing group membership upon kinship provides clear rules of lifetime membership thereby overcoming the standard problems of adverse selection. Kinship also provides high observability of behavior that means it ensures groups are well- informed about anti-social behaviors and discourage moral hazards. A society composed of multiple kin groups is more efficient than a homogeneous, but atomized society. Kin groups do not divide a pre-existing whole, but rather aggregate an atomized society into groups

27
large enough to reap the gains from collective actions. Effective political groupings are too large to be based upon social interaction and so must be based upon an imagined share identity (Anderson, 1983).
Modern ethnic political loyalties start from reciprocal economic obligations within a kin group, extend to an imagined community of shared interest within a tribe, and often extend to allowances with other tribes to form a political party. The fear of ethnic politics in societies with ethnic minorities will lead to the permanent exclusion of other groups and discrimination against them. Together with Ashish Garg, they analyzed the effects of ethnic diversity in the Ghanaian labor market (Collier and Garg, 1999). They found ethnic diversity had consequences which are highly problematic. Controlling for other characteristics, they argue that workers from tribes that are locally the largest usually command a substantial wage premium. This they explained in terms of the power of kin group patronage in promotions, with larger groups having disproportionate power. The problem from this scenario is poor national economic policy. Ethnic diversity makes political cooperation more difficult (Easterly and Levine, 1997).
Collier and Garg (1999) found that in the public sector, the patronage-induced wage premiums for the locally largest tribe was twenty-five (25) percent whereas in the private sector, it was zero. They analyzed this by arguing that, in the private sector, competition force firms to curb the patronage power of kinship. More so, Collier argues ethnic diversity is damaging if it takes the form of dominance. Political protest is more common in ethnically diverse societies and political violence is less common. Diversity not homogeneity lowers the risk of conflict (Bates 1999, p.31). Dominance (one ethnic group in permanent) may produce victimization and so increase the risk of rebellion. ―Fragmentalization‖ however is predicted to make rebellion more difficult because to be militarily viable, a rebel organization must maintain cohesion. In Collier‘s work with Anke

28
Hoeffler (Collier and Hoeffler, 1998, 2000), they found ethnic dominance indeed doubles the risk of civil war and fragmentation significantly reduces the risk.
Collier (2001) further went on to look at ethnicity in democratic regimes. To him, if democratic politics is dysfunctional in ethnically diverse societies, then such societies need a strong leader ‗above‘ politics to avoid these pressures; the introduction of party loyalties based on ethnic affiliation does not substantially change outcomes, but rather it is likely to have significant negative effects in either single-issue politics or multi-issue politics. Single-issue politics assumes government is constrained and all citizens must benefit equally from the provision of a public good or service. With this kind of politics, ethnic politics makes no difference to political decisions regardless of whether diversity takes the form of fragmentation or dominance. Even when ethnic identification is strongly correlated with an interest, ethnic politicking makes surprisingly little difference. When diversity takes the form of fragmentation, ethnic politicking will normally have only a negligible effect; but when it takes the form of ethnic identification dominance, it will have a significant effect if the dominant group has a small plurality and if at the same time, there is a large difference between that group and others.
Multi-issue politics, in this system, the absence of identification makes political parties (if they exist at all) to be weak. In here, political parties‘ survivals depend on their ability to deliver ―expenditure‖ to the people, rather than on party loyalties. In multi-issue politics, there is no ‗core‘, i.e. there is no equilibrium and the likely outcome is therefore instability (Imman and Rubenstein, 1997). The political system continues to try to build minimum winning coalitions which capture all the benefits of public expenditure for its own members. Hence, majorities keep forming and breaking up. The effects of exogenous party loyalties i.e. no ethnic group constitute majority are mutual gains from cooperation if only a bargain can be negotiated and enforced. The more ethnically fractionalized a society is, the

29
greater the number of political parties, the more difficult it might arrive at a cooperative solution.
In conclusion, Collier argues any system in which electoral allegiance is based on identity will have cooperation problems as well as instability. Ethnic dominance confers durable power on a winning ethnic group which sacrifices growth and redistribution of resources and to solve the problems of ethnic dominance, there is the need for better protection of minority rights in societies with ethnic majorities. Rights of equal treatment, individual or group need to be incorporate into the popular conception of democracy as well as ethnic employment patronage in the public sector could be countered by greater transparency in hiring and promotions perhaps reinforced by targets and quota protection for minorities plus the boundary between public and private activity should be drawn somewhat different.
Cheeseman and Ford (2007) examine the significance of ethnicity as a political cleavage across African nations. They look at ‗ethnic voting‘ of all significant parties and ethnic groups. They divide ethnic voting by dividing it into two- ―ethnic polarization and ethnic diversity‖. The former captures the importance of ethnic identification in determining party support levels while the latter captures variations in the ethnic diversity of the support base of different parties. Ethnicity has long been understood as playing a crucial role in structuring party politics in Africa (Horowitz, 1985; Palmberg, 1999; Posner, 1999). Norris and Maltes (2003) find that ethnicity does play an important role in determining support for ruling parties but ethnicity is not always the primary cleavage in African politics. Scarrit and Mazaffar (2005) demonstrate that both ethno-political fragmentation and geographical concentration of ethnic groups are important factors in explaining the number of political parties.
They argue again that, the vast majority of political parties in Africa are not ‗ethnic parties‘. On average, opposition parties are less ethnically diverse than ruling parties and both ruling

30
and opposition parties are diverging. While ruling parties are becoming increasing ethnically diverse and less ethnically polarized, the opposite is generally true of opposition parties, making the evolution of ethnicity as a political cleavage complex. The need for incumbent parties to build large coalitions in order to retain power appears to have encouraged the development of multi-ethnic political alliances which are becoming increasingly representative of the national population. This scenario is likely to continue as aspirant leaders recognize the electoral need to prevent themselves as national, rather than sectional or regional leaders.
They argue that, if this continue, it is more likely to undermine the salience of ethnic identifications as cleavages. Interestingly, many opposition parties have responded to electoral defeat by mobilizing increasingly ethnically homogenous communities. The underlying tension between the ‗included‘ and the ‗excluded‘ if not dealt with could prove divisive in the future. The level of ethnic representation is significant as it is likely to have a strong impact in question of legitimacy of regimes, trust and ultimately political stability. The majority of ruling parties between 2001 and 2006 have been ethnically ‗unrepresentative‘ of the population they serve. This is as a result, of incumbent parties becoming more ethnically diverse and less ethnically polarized. This could reduce the significance of ethnicity as a political dividing line and suggests that multi-party elections may promote ,rather than hinder the emergence of a ‗non ethnic‘ politics.
In addition, they argue that there is a synergy between ethnic identity and party affiliation. In Ghana after 2001, using a kappa score, Ghana scored 0.508(2001), 0.340(2003) and 0.352(2006). Countries scoring below 0.250 suggest that ethnicity is not the predominant political factor in those countries and they included Botswana - 0.168(2001), 0.088(2003) and0.136 (2006) and Mali after 2001 – 0.216(2003) and 0.244(2006). In 2001 and 2006,out of ten(10) countries, eight(8) showed that ethnic polarization of support of ruling parties fell

31
between these periods suggesting that incumbent were recruiting support from across the societies they ruled. Surprisingly, ethnic polarization of opposing parties supports rose in six(6) out of the ten(10) countries surveyed of which Ghana recorded 0.452(2001),0.312(2003) and 0.364(2006).
Based on knowing whether parties are ethnic parties, they classified ethnic parties in five categories as follows:-
(I) Parties which receive 85 percent and 100 percent of their support from one ethnic group as ‗ethnic parties‘.
(II) Parties receiving less than 85 percent but more than 66.6 percent of their support from on ethnic group as ‗potentially ethnic‘ parties. Such parties are neither so dominated by one group that they will be encouraged to tailor policies solely to that community nor independent enough of the support of the group that the party leadership can risk alienating this support base.
(III) Parties which receive between 33.3 percent and 66.6 percent of their votes from one ethnic group as ‗multi-ethnic‘ parties. These are genuinely broad based alliance in which the party is reliant on support from a number of different ethnic groups. The importance of cross-ethnic support to these parties must offer policies which are attractive to a range of communities.
(IV) Multi-ethnic parties-majority ethnic group receive between 50 percent and 66.6 percent and mottle-ethnic party-no majority ethnic group (33.3 percent and 50 percent).
(V) Finally, where the largest ethnic group constitute less than a third of the parties total support. The party is ‗non ethnic‘.
Mahama (2013) examines the potential dangers of ethnic manipulation as capital tool on one hand and ethnic conflict on the other and how they affect the consolidation of Ghana‘s

32
effort of democracy. He argues that continued spread of ethnic conflict and deepening of existing ones coupled with the dangers of ethnic identity by political entrepreneurs is not only threat but harmful to the country‘s democracy. He affirms that strengthening democratic institutions and civil society among others is the way forward for the consolidation of our fragile democracy. Ethnic groups possess their culture, customs, norms, beliefs and traditions. There is usually a common language and boundary maintenance between members and non-members.
He goes on to argue ethnic rivalries of the pre-colonial era, variance in the impact of colonialism upon different regions of the country, and the uneven distribution of social and economic amenities in post-independence Ghana have all contributed to the present-day tensions among ethnics. Ethnic and regional considerations have played significant roles in the fortunes of political parties in Ghana. Ethnic mobilization and exploitation have characterized Ghanaian politics for very long and the deepening of this trend is a hindrance to our efforts of consolidating our democracy. The effort of consolidating our democracy is not a choice but a necessity if we are to continue priding ourselves as the beacon of African democracy. The deepening of ethnic division mostly aligned to the political division and the upsurge and/or renewal of ethnic conflict due to apparent political manipulation for electoral gain is a worry as far as our future of democracy is concerned.
In addition to these, conflict situations are caused by several factors including chieftaincy issues though the bottom line is often ethnic and examples are the Bawku conflict between the Kusasis and Mamprusis, the Dagombas and Nanumbas and more recently between the Fantes and Ewes in Ekumfi. Ethnic diversity is not just beautiful due partly to the exquisite blend of culture, but when characterized by unity; togetherness and tolerance could yield many dividends in our country‘s national life. Ethnic discrimination and stereotyping by

33
some ethnic groups against others easily draw people closer to where they feel accepted and identified with and that could account for this significant alignment.
Finally, injustice is a breeding grounding for anarchy and self-defense. Ghana‘s democracy is characterized by weak institutions, lack luster civil society and corruption which render the country‘s democracy more vulnerable and susceptible to the dangers of ethnic politicking and manipulative ethnic conflicts for political gains. Political leadership should also work towards strengthening the capacity of government and democratic institutions to allow for their effective and efficient functioning to help provide the needed services to Ghanaians.
Ansell and Gash (2007) look at what is termed ‗collaborative governance‘ both in theory and practice. Collaborative governance brings public and private stakeholders together in collective forum with public agencies to engage in consensus-oriented decision-making. They examine the conditions under which collaborative governance will be more or less effective as an approach to policy making and public management. Collaborative governance emerged as a response to the failures of downstream implementation and to the high cost and politicization of regulation. It also arose from the growth of knowledge and institutional capacity. They define collaborative governance as ‗a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets‘. Lynn, Heinrich and Hill (2007) construe governance broadly as ―regimes of laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goods and services.
They define collaborative governance as a type of governance in which public and private actors work collectively in distinctive ways, using particular processes, to establish laws

34
and rules for the provision of public goods. Their definition stipulates a specific role for public agencies and look specifically at the executive branch. Public agencies initiate collaborative forums either to fulfill their own purposes or to comply with a mandate including court orders, legislation or rules governing the allocation of central government funds. Stakeholder is defined by them as the participation of citizens as individuals and to the participation of organized groups. Collaborative governance is never consultative. It implies two-way communication and influence between agencies and stakeholders and also opportunities for stakeholders to talk with each other. The institutionalization of a collective decision-making process is paramount in understanding collaborative governance.
In addition to these arguments, resources/liabilities of collaboration include a level of trust, conflict and social capital. Power imbalances between stakeholders are a commonly noted problem in collaborative governance and they produce distrust or weak commitment. If some stakeholders do not have the capacity, organization, status or resources to participate or to participate on an equal footing with other stakeholders, the collaborative governance process will be prone to manipulation by stronger actors. The power imbalances are particularly problematic where important stakeholders do not have the organizational infrastructure to be represented in the governance process. Another problem is that, some stakeholders may not have the skills and expertise to engage in discussions about highly technical problems(Gunton and Day,2003;Lasker and Weiss,2003;Merkhofer et al.,1997;Murdock et al.,2005;Warner,2006).
A third is that, some stakeholders do not have the time, energy or liberty to engage in time- intensive collaborative processes (Yaffee and Wondoleak, 2003). Power and resource imbalances affect the incentives of groups to participate in collaborative process (Gunton and Day, 2003; Imperial, 2005). Power differences among players influence their willingness to come to the table (Gray, 1989). Incentives to participate depend in part upon

35
stakeholders‘ expectations about where the collaborative processes will yield meaningful results especially against the balance of time and energy (Bradford, 1998; Geoghegan and Renard, 2002; Rogers et al. 1993; Schneider et al. 2003; Warner 2006).
In conclusion, they argue that venue shopping can easily undercut collaborative processes. Incentives to participate in collaborative governance will also increase if stakeholders perceive achievements of their goals to be dependent on cooperation from other stakeholders(Logsdon,1991);where incentives to participate are weak, power and resources are asymmetrically distributed and prior antagonisms are high, leadership becomes all the more important. The more stakeholders fundamentally distrust each other, the more leadership must assume the role of honest broker.
Tong (2009) looks at the causes of ethnic peace and that of ethnic violence. She examines how ‗master narratives‘, scarce resources and democratic institutions have influenced the occurrence of ethnic violence. She uses four (4) countries- Ghana, Cote d‘Ivoire, Kenya and Tanzania in analysis ethnic peace and ethnic violence. She pairs a peaceful one with a violent one and so pairs as specific ―Ghana and Cote d‘Ivoire‖ and ―Kenya and Tanzania‖. In order to ensure peace, nations ought to learn how to cultivate societies of civic trust across ethnic lines. Colonialism has influenced how African nations have attempted to develop and the way in which democracy has been pursued. Political institutions best explain the occurrence of ethnic peace. Free press, independent legislatures and viable opposition parties provide peaceful ways to resolve competitions between ethnic groups.
She further argues cultural identity, scarce resources and political manipulations by elites are not sufficient variables for understanding all facets of ethnic violence. Without politically viable ethnic cleavages, there is nothing for elites to exploit, nor is there any sort of ethnic bases for such conflicts. Ethnic groups are used by political elites or the people to make the rational choice to compete with other ethnic groups over scarce resources or

36
access to political power such as executive office. While economic scarcity empirically explains some cases of violence, it fails to explain how it is that so many poor countries are peaceful. The same can be said for political manipulation which is present in many cases of violence.
In conclusion, Tong argues strong institutions create civic trust which means citizens believe that the ballot is more powerful than the bullet and therefore, institutions prevent ethnic violence and contribute to the existence of ethnic peace in various countries.
Jedwab (2001) argues that the strength of communal expressions of identity very often depend upon the extent to which a group is able to mobilize persons around shared interests and objectives. Understanding the processes by which leaders emerge can provide valuable insights into institutional life and the manner in which a community sets its agenda and establishes priorities. The ability to retain and recruit effective leaders could be an important source of group persistence. He examines the relationship between leadership, governance and politics of identity. Social identity presumes that ‗part of a person‘s self- definition is the knowledge of membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership (Tajfel, 1982). The feelings for differentials among people are a panacea for ethnic identification (Barth, 1969).
He defines an ethnic group as comprising of persons who view themselves as belonging to a special group and sharing particular attributes. Identity formation and the resulting communal leadership are undoubtedly influenced by historic and demographic considerations as well as the broader socioeconomic contexts within which the group evolves. Aside the degree of openness or hostility of the surrounding environment to the promotion of varying expression of identity such as rootedness of the society, pattern of immigration of a group, its unity and diversity are important to identity formation (Rosenberg and Jedwab, 1992). Notion of leadership is very much linked to the issue of

37
power and influence. Power cannot be separated from the control of resources because many of the key decisions in political systems deal with such matters.
Moreover, the economic conditions and social status of a society may have a significant bearing on the nature of governance and leadership as identity needs are addressed by institutions and the individuals who run them. Finally, knowledge of the evolution of the ethno cultural communities in not only critical to understanding their modes of governance, as well as leadership development and identity formation, but effective leadership networks are formed where opportunities are maximized for the pooling of resources and the combination of action.
Asante and Gyimah-Boadi (2004) look at ethnic structures, inequality and governance in the public sector in Ghana. They argue that, no part of Ghana is ethnically homogenous, an overriding feature of the country‘s ethnic polarization of north-south divide. The problem of inequality has been partially addressed through representation and the symbolism of appointments of individuals from a variety of ethno-territorial and religious backgrounds to prominent positions in government, the public and quasi state services. It appears institutional structures as well as distribution of symbolic and bureaucratic resources which foster inclusion, cohesion and participation have helped the checking of ethnic polarization in the Ghanaian society.
They analyze the effectiveness of the governance institutions or arrangements and public policies to regulate political competition and conflicts in the public sector in order to build a peace, stable and inclusive society; how successive governments have perceived and managed the main cleavages and inequalities and most crucially, what types of institutions and public sectors have been adopted by governments successively in the management of these cleavages and inequalities. They argued that inequality in Ghana has been determined by factors such as geography, gender, disability and class. Inequality of opportunities

38
among the peoples of Ghana is often the result of the combined effect of objective factors such as differentials of resource endowment, history and public policy, as well as subjective factors such as prejudices and attitudes (Ghana Human Development Report, 1997).
In addition, they argue that ethnic politics in Ghana emerged after the overthrow of Nkrumah‘s Convention People CPP in 1966 by what they described as ‗the comrades in crime‘, Ashanti (Major Afrifa) and Ewe (Colonel Kotoka).
They further say Ashanti-Ewe rivalry has persisted into the 4th Republic with Ashanti-Ewe exceptionalism in voting patterns. While other regions distribute their votes, Ashanti and Volta Regions concentrate their votes on their home-based parties in all the elections held since the commencement of the 4th Republic. The NDC sweeping votes of Volta region by 94.5percent,93.2percent and 88.47percent respectively in the 1992.1996 and 2000 presidential elections, while the NPP won approximately 66percent,61percent and 80percent respectively in Ashanti region. The regional impact on electoral outcome in Ghana is very difficult to gauge mainly because some regions are largely coterminous with ethnic groups or sub-groups of ethnic groups while others are not. Akan voters often support and vote for individuals and candidates who are not Akans and similarly, non-Akan voters support and vote also for parties and individuals who are Akans.
Moreover, they argue that, although regional patterns of voting could contain hidden ethnic dimensions, the trajectory of electoral politics in Ghana depict that, even though ethnic cleavage is significant, it is nevertheless the sole variable which determines the outcomes of elections. The conscious efforts on the part of political parties to present ethnically mixed presidential slates in elections have contributed largely to the diffusion of ethnic imbalance in the voting pattern in presidential elections.
Again, they cite the 2000 Elections as example and were quick to say ethno-regional factors alone would not significantly explain the patterns of voting in the three (3) Northern

39
Regions as NDC retained its dominance by winning the majority of the votes cast in both presidential ballots but the NPP managed to increase its share of votes from about 30percent in the first round to about 49percent in the run-off due partly because the People‘s National Convention (PNC) gave its support to the NPP. In the Public Service, they focused on the position of Chief Directors for the various ministries and other establishments. The first appointments were made in September, 1993. Out of the seventeen(17) people appointed, eleven(11) were Akans, three(3) Ewes, two(2) Gas and a Northern under NDC but when the NPP came to power, out of the seventeen(17) Chief Directors appointed in 2003, nine(9) were Akans, two(2) Ewes, four(4) Gas and two(2) Northerners.
Also, they argue that, there is a strong belief that party affiliation, ethnic identification and region of origin are highly influential and possibly the most influential factors in public service appointments aside based on merits. The 1992 Constitution contains notable proclamation and extensive provisions on good governance and participation. It does this through the entrenchment of certain rights and innovations such as recognition of economic, educational and cultural rights, along with the traditional constitutional concern with civil, political and private property rights. They argue these are to promote policies and programs that override sectional, ethnic and other loyalties in recruitment and appointments to public office. They also seek to foster the inclusion of groups and regions who do not support or vote for the government of the day to be represented in government.
Finally, they point to the provision in the 1992 Constitution which require a person to attain a vote of more than 50percent to be president encourage politicians and political parties to forge alliances and to broaden their support by seeking votes outside their traditional ethnic strongholds. The overall dominance of the Akan group in economic and social life and in the public sector represent the main features of ethnic and regional polarization in Ghana

40
and fragmentation among the various ethnic groups encourage cross-ethnic coalitions and help to foster crude but stable inter-ethnic conflicts.
Ofosu (2008) looks at connections between ethnicity and political choices during elections and applies institutional analyses. She uses Fanteakwa electoral politics to explain democratization and ethnic identity and uses three institutions of local powers to explain when ethnicity becomes a significant factor as a political tool. She argues that, although people determine their political allegiance on the basis of political familiarity, they also do so because of economic well-being as a basis. To her, the institutional relationship and features of a political party locally, local government administration and chieftaincy define how resources are apportioned, who gets what and when and because of this, electorates are sometimes made to rely on ethnic cleavages. Locality is also a more salient factor than ethnicity in determining how people reason about their political choices in a multi-ethnic setting. Again, formal institutions determine the kinds of social cleavages that matter in politics. Institutions delineate the strategic context of social, economic and political interactions in which ethnicity would or could not be salient but critical in the processes of democratization which introduce political parties and decentralized local government into local setting already structured politically in part by differentials in ethnicity.
Moreover, Ofosu argues chieftaincy gives ethnicity its potential verve in its relation to local political parties and the district assembly. Ethnicity is a sociocultural and historical variable shaped by the character of the institutions operating at the local levels as well as an instrument in the context of those institutions. Other sociopolitical organizations such as villages, clans, administrative areas and political parties are influential in the political process. Ultimately, political interests are defined by one‘s village of origin and immediate chiefly authority.

41
Finally, she argues ethnicity is the major challenge to an equitable distribution of the benefits of national citizenship. In fact, it is the positioning of local interests within an institutional framework of chieftaincy, district assembly and political parties that determine who can fully exercise the rights of national citizenship at the local level.
In conclusion, ethnic identity occurs when there is ethnocentrism, competition for resources and inequalities in power. Ethnocentrism makes groups disparaged depending on the extent of their differences from the majority; competitions among groups occurs when they vie for the same resources but it need not lead to the feel of being ethnically identified if values concerning freedoms and equality are held and enforced; and the inequality in power enables one group to impose its will upon the others. Power permits the dominant group to render the subordinate groups ineffectual as competitors and to institutionalize the distribution of rewards and opportunities to consolidate their positions. Ethnicity is a factor when it comes to the analyses of Ghanaian politics and it is a way of understanding why certain policies and programs are made by different governments under different leadership era but there are other significant factors which underpin the reasons for various styles of governance and leadership in their running of their administrations.

42
Chapter 3 METHOD SECTION
The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative data collection tools but it is rooted in much of a quantitative epistemological position that recognizes the significance of locating the research within a particular socio-cultural perspectives. It took essentially the identities participants construct within them. The study looked at Ghana‘s politics in relation to how ethnic identification influences it especially in the 4th Republic. In addition, the study involved the use of documentaries, case studies and field works, and employment of both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses.
Documentary research involves the use of texts and documents as source materials. We employed those obtained from newspapers, census publications and pictorial sources in both the paper and electronic media in Ghana.
With the case studies, it is a descriptive, exploratory or explanatory analysis of issues. In the case studies analyses, we will employ the retrospective analyses, where criteria are established for selecting our case studies from historical resources such as the votes obtained by both presidential candidates in the 2012 elections in relation to their home regions.
The field work entailed intensive internet and documentary researches to help us with the theoretical foundations of the study. Again, it entails the usage of face-to-face interviewing and issuance of questionnaires to various people from all works of life in order to sample their views and opinions about ―ethnicity and politics in the Ghanaian 4th Republic‖. With the issuance of the questionnaires, people were sent a short epitome of the study‘s aim and possible questions and the interviews entails the asking of participants through personal contacts by using well coded questions.

43
At the onset of the personal interviews, people were informed of the relevance of conducting such research and clarifications and distortions were made and expelled from participants‘ minds.
We used a sample size of 375 in all because we want it to really be representative of the population, in this case the people of Ghana. We employed the use of random probability sampling by using that of the multi-cluster sampling techniques, where we take regions such as Greater Accra, Eastern and Ashanti, and we scale them down to district, municipal and metropolitan areas such as the Ga-West Municipal, Akim-Oda District, Kumasi Metropolitan and Asokore-Mampong Municipality. After finding the areas, we chose households randomly and from each household at least two people were selected and at most four.
The issuances of questionnaires to participants were 200 and interviewed 175 people. Out of the 375, we used a purposive sampling of 70% as men and 30% as women because a pilot test with about 100 people was carried out and we realized that, women are reluctant when it comes to the issue of politics and men are more active players of politics in Ghana.
Qualitative methods are used because; they have the ability to obtain more realistic views of participants which cannot be experienced in ‗8numerical data and statistical analyses. Also, they yield results that can be helpful in pioneering new ways of understanding and providing holistic views of the phenomena under investigation but they are limited by drafting away from the marginal objectives of the research in response to the changing nature of the context, arriving at different conclusions based on the same information depending on the personal characteristics of the research.
Again, we employed quantitative methods such as the student t-test due to the employment of the inferential statistics, chi-square- for comparing the categorical

44
responses between two variables, Cohen Kappa, for measuring the agreement between the two raters, i.e. ethnicity and politics in terms of looking at the Akans and non- Akans, the confidence level for the reliability of such data to be obtained, and correlation coefficient by using the Pearson‘s product-moment correlation. The Pearson‘s correlation is used to check the relationships that exist between two or more variables by looking at their dependencies or independence of one another.
Finally, we employed the use of computational method through the usage of SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software.

45
Chapter 4 DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we looked at the influence of ethnicity in the Ghanaian politics especially in the 4th Republic. Looking at the factor of ethnicity in the Ghanaian politics, we issued 200 questionnaires to people who are 18years and above and of sound mind that are deemed eligible to exercise their franchise to elect leaders in any general election.
Out of the 200 interviewees, majority of the people were Akans (i.e. 99 people representing 49.5 percent), and about 5.5 percent said they do not consider themselves as belonging to an ethnic group. Out the 200 respondents, 136 voted in the at least the last General Election representing 68 percent; and out of the 136 people about 46 percent did vote for the New Patriotic Party (NPP), about 40 percent for the National Democratic Congress (NDC), and about 7 percent each voted for the Progressive People‘s Party (PPP) and the others.

46
Figure 4-1
Source: Field study 2014
Interestingly, out of 136 respondents who voted in the last elections, 96 representing close to 71 percent are party supporters or sympathizers of the various parties.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
votes percentages
46
40
7
7
NPP
NDC
PPP
OTHERS

47
Table 4-1
Source: Field Study 2014
In reference to the choices of influence in terms of choosing candidates, only 134 people answered that portion of it. Out of these respondents, 14.2 percent went for personality; 5.2 percent said manifesto (party platform) influenced them; 23.1 percent were influenced by past achievements of the various parties particularly the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and National Democratic Congress (NDC); ideology (i.e. what the political party stands for) was the major influence which represents 32.1 percent and finally 25.4 percent being influenced by ethnic affiliations.
Majority of the Akan ethnic group said they voted for the New Patriotic Party (NPP) representing 69.5 percent of those who voted and about 20.3 percent voted for the National Democratic Congress (NDC). With the non- Akans, especially the Ewes,
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
14.20%
5.20%
23.10%
32.10%
25.40%
Choice of Influence
choice of influence

48
majority voted for the NDC (i.e. 69.6 percent voted for the NDC) followed by the Gas representing 48 percent of the valid votes cast among the respondents.
Of the 55 people who voted for the NDC, about 78.2 percent of them belong to the non- Akan ethnic groups whilst about 30.5 percent did vote for the NPP.
With the issue of trust of government among these multi-polar ethnic groups we have in Ghana, only about 33.7 percent said they trust the governments meaning about 66.3 percent have no trust in the government. With the question of parties campaigning on ethnic lines, 96 people said either the NPP or NDC campaigned mutually exclusively or both representing 48 percent of all the respondents which calls for serious analyses.
The question on whether only leaders from their ethnic groups could really advocate for the needs of their people, 43.6 percent said they agree and another 39.6 percent saying that they disagree with that perception and about 19. 7 percent are not sure whether they agree or disagree with such analyses.

49
Figure 4-2
0
14
0
12
4
1
22
Ethnic Groups
CPP
NDC
NONE
NPP
PNC
PPP

50
Table 4-2 Ethnic Groups Total Akan Mole Dagbani Ewe Ga Others second choice Missing (unticked) 45 1 7 7 1 61 CPP 14 0 1 3 4 22 NDC 0 3 1 2 1 7 None 12 3 11 13 6 45 NPP 4 0 5 2 1 12 PNC 1 3 1 1 2 8 PPP 22 1 5 4 1 33 Total 98 11 31 32 16 188
Interestingly, when the question of if people were made to cast a second vote for another party, only 127 answered that portion and out of the answered, 45 representing an approximation of 35% answered none of the parties, meaning that about 56% of them are entrenched supporters or sympathizers of all political parties (i.e. missing and none together) and about 26% of the respondents answered that, they would have casted a second ballot for the Progressive People‘s Party (PPP).
When the issue of ethnicity was asked as being dangerous to governance in Ghana,176 respondents believe it is strongly dangerous representing 84.3 percent of the sample population which means that, whenever one picks 100 Ghanaians to sample their views on ethnicity, it is estimated that about 84 people are likely to kick against campaigning or politicking on ethnic lines.

51
We further looked what the major factors which influence ethnic groups when voting for a person and this was how the respondents answered them:
Table 4-3 Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent ethnic group * choice of influence 130 65.0% 70 35.0% 200 100.0%
Source: Field Study
In the table above, it looks at the relationship between various ethnic groups and their choice of influence. In here, only 130 people answered representing a percentage of 65% of all respondents during the interview session.

52
Table 4-4
Choice of Influence Total personality party platform past achievements ideology Ethnicity Ethnic Group Akan 5 5 17 21 5 53 Mole Dagbani 3 0 4 2 2 11 Ewe 3 1 5 11 6 26 Ga 8 0 2 3 13 26 Others 0 1 3 2 8 14 Total 19 7 31 39 34 130
The table shows the choices of influences when it comes to the selections of leaders as well as what influences various ethnic groups in their voting choices in the political despension.

53
Figure 4-3
From the graph above, ethnicity had 9% of the influence in terms of how Akans voted with about 40% and 32% representing ideology (i.e. what they party stands for) and achievements of the party respectively.
personality 10%
manifesto 9%
achievements 32%
ideology 40%
ethnicity 9%
Akans
personality
manifesto
achievements
ideology
ethnicity

54
Figure 4-4
With that of Mole-Dagbani, 18.1% were influenced by their ethnicity and 63.7% being influenced by either personality or achievement of the person or party.
27.30%
0
36.40%
18.10%
18.10%
Mole-Dagbani
personality
achievements
ideology
ethnicity

Understanding ethnicity and politics in ghana's 4 th republic

Understanding ethnicity and politics in ghana's 4 th republic

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Understanding ethnicity and politics in ghana's 4 th republic

Similaire à Understanding ethnicity and politics in ghana's 4 th republic (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Understanding ethnicity and politics in ghana's 4 th republic