Explaining chieftaincy conflict using historical institutionalism: A case study of the Ga Mashie chieftaincy conflict in Ghana

Abstract

Chieftaincy conflicts are important political processes in a number of African countries. So far, much of the research on the topic has been grounded in Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT). Offering an alternative theoretical lens to explain chieftaincy conflict, this article draws on historical institutionalism and, in a more systematic way, on the concepts of critical junctures and path dependence, to explain the nature of the Ga Mashie chieftaincy conflict during Ghana’s Fourth Republic (1993–present). Grounded in a qualitative case study method and drawing on original interview data, the article argues that the imposition of colonial and postcolonial political structures with no roots in precolonial political offices has led to conflicting interpretations of who the rightful successor to the Ga Mashie throne is. Contested versions of the customs and traditions of the Ga people, with particular reference to succession, exist, leading to ongoing chieftaincy conflict.