5.6 The Institutions of the Community Dibia and the Chiefs
5.6.2 The Ozo (Chiefs) Fraternity
troubled. For the dibia, the recovery of every life remains the focus for medicine. Medicine is accessible to all in need whether rich or poor. Payment could just remain a gift as Uzukwu (1996) notes. Medical care in the Igbo system is decentralised for all to access thereby encouraging full participation in accessing health care. In the centralised system, of both the Roman Catholic Church and the colonial era, medication is accessible only to the ones who could afford. The Catholic Church by the activities of the missionaries gave medication to those whom they know will pay back by embracing the faith. In recent years, Catholic priest and other Christian with the gift of healing use their gifts on the sick while expecting monetary favours from their clients.
The following section now turns to look into the second fraternity in this subdivision, the Ozo or chiefs among the Igbo Ohacracy order.
Meanwhile, the Igbo Ohacracy system as will be further expressed is also known as Ohazurume (Ohacracy) philosophy. This indeed encourages and practices a decision making and consensus building among the Igbo communities. Hence, Muo and Oghojafor (2012:154- 157) emphasised thus:
...Ohazurume… literarily (sic) means ‘it is the communal will’; … that ensures that decisions are easily accepted because of its collective properties.
…Because the issue is decided collectively by the ‘oha’ (the people), no individual can upturn it. ...decentralized (consensus-based) systems in which law making, social control and allocation of resources are managed by entities like village groups, ‘umunna’, age-grades...; As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be: agreement seeking...
collaborative...cooperative... and egalitarian...
Hence, while the former governance system (the kingship or chiefdom) is a centralized form of governance whereby decision and authority are centred around one individual; the later system, Ohacracy is a decentralised system whereby decision-making and authority are centred around the assembly or the people (Nweke 2012:209). By so doing and having stated this, the ‘chiefs’ in the Igbo practice of Ohacracy remains ‘honorary title’ and not an authority vested like in the centralised system. It is significant to note that as defined above, the Igbo Ohacracy decentralised system encourages full participation of all members of the community in decision making and authority. No one individual has power and authority over others as in the centralised system. Instead, cooperation, collaboration, dialogue, and egalitarian means is sort to arrive at any decision and by so doing every individual or group find space to express their free will and opinion over issues or cases.
Having made these clarifications the chapter briefly discusses the three epoch developments of chieftaincy practice among the Igbo Ohacracy order.
5.6.2.1 The Pre-Colonial Perspectives of Igbo Chieftaincy Institution
Anthropologists’ and historians accounts on the Igbo Ohacracy chieftaincy institution was such that it is described as ‘stateless’, ‘acephalous’, and or ‘segmentary’ in nature (see Ukpokolo 2010:177). The following scholars yet affirm this fact that these consist of autonomous villages and village groups or towns; (Green 1947:57; Uchendu 1965:15; Isichei 1976:21 and Ifemesia 1978:17). For this reason, Afigbo (2005:100) states:
This view can be attributed to the influence of the system built up by Fortes and Evans-Pritchard in their epoch-making book, “African Political Systems”.
In that work they distinguished between two main African political systems –
Group A or state types and Group B or stateless types. They put the Igbo into Group B pigeon-hole. As a result people have come to look upon the Igbo as having one type of political system.
The village-groups and or towns in this regard were ruled by ‘diffused’ authority without formalized, permanent, or hereditary leadership positions. Explaining further on the operation of the village system of government, Uchendu (1965:41; 46) agrees that the “prototypical Igbo traditional local political organisation was an exercise in direct democracy at the village- group level, with a representative assembly.” This concurs with Ubah (1987:171) who notes that before a decision was taken on any issue members were given the chance to express their opinions freely whether for or against. No particular individuals or groups are allowed to impose their opinions on others. Consensus through dialogue and ultimate coordination of views remained the purposes intended. Nonetheless, where agreement could not be achieved it was easy to determine the wishes of most people and others would follow.
However, noting some different practices in certain Riverine Igbo communities Afigbo (1981:31) writes that there were exceptions to this general picture. Some Igbo communities, especially trading cities along the Niger like Onitsha, Oguta and the ‘holy city’ of Nri all had elaborated chieftaincy institutions in the pre-colonial times. Nweke (2012:210) agrees to this double political systems of centralised (in minority) and decentralised (in majority) in the Igbo Ohacracy order.
Though it is believed and remonstrated in several studies that the traditional Igbo Ohacracy pre-colonial order was a highly democratic principled society (Aguwa 1993:20), the inner structures of this epoch among the Igbo reveals much less egalitarian society. A clear example on this is the existence of ‘slaves’ (ohu) and the ‘cult-slave’ (osu) on one instance and leaders on the other (Agbasiere 2000:96).74 In essence, all were not equal after all. In instances of
‘leadership,’ the Igbo Ohacracy order did not have central governance but certain individual persons were able to establish themselves in different powerful and influential institutions that made big impressions and influential in decision making. Most of these individuals were men;
though women had their own assemblies through which they influence decision making policies in the Igbo Ohacracy society (Allen 1972:167, Ukpokolo 2010:179 and Amadiume 2015:166).
74 Further discussion on the Ohu (slaves) and Osu (cult-slaves) practices among the Igbo Ohacracy order will be made as the study looks at the Osu cast institution in this chapter.
Finally, the point being made here is that in the pre-colonial Igbo Ohacracy there was dominantly decentralised system of governance by which the people participated openly in governance. There were no individuals or groups who dominated decision making process.
All adults influenced this process as they participated in dialogue and consultations facilitated by men and women of honorary chieftaincy titles. The next section discusses the colonial era which changed the practice of chieftaincy into an authoritative position rather than being people centred institution.
5.6.2.2 The Colonial Period of Chieftaincy among the Igbo Ohacracy Order Basically, this era established ‘centralised’ system of governance which is at the heart of this study. The honorary chieftaincy became governing officers as the British colonial system introduced a new structured of governance that never existed among the Igbo Ohacracy order thereby changing the Igbo world understanding forever. This change ultimately alienated individuals and communities from participating actively in their communities. Local communities became onlookers in their own environment depending on the “orders” of the
‘ruling’ officers known as ‘warrant chiefs.’
The history of how the British colonial system affected the Igbo chieftaincy is wrapped around the introduction of the ‘Warrant Chiefs’ as well documented in A. E. Afigbo’s doctoral thesis of 1972 (Falola 2005:214-215). The British colonial government instituted
‘Native Courts’ in Igbo land and installed chiefs by warrant who controlled them between the years of 1890s-1917. This took place few years after Nigeria became a nation through the forced single amalgamation project by Lord Lugard in 1914 (Afigbo 1972:118). The three major and completely different tribes of people groups (the Igbo, Hausa and Yoruba) became one nation known today as Nigeria (Afigbo 1972:118). Afigbo (2007:3) stresses in ‘Ohuzo’
and notes that frequently, Warrant Chiefs were installed arbitrarily. These chiefs were used as agents, instruments and tools to achieve indirect rule without much recourse or consideration of the local Igbo Ohacracy traditions. Of course, ‘hierarchy and status’ became the competition of the day. Individuals who were willing to cooperate with the foreign imposition without care and account for the details of per-colonial local political structures among the Igbo Ohacracy took the advantage for personal gain and interest. These individual warrant chiefs sold out their communities. It is to this development that Nweke (2012:210) observes:
…the introduction of warrant chiefs, especially in the South-astern Nigeria which included the now South/South or Niger Delta region by the British
colonial administration is a further indication of the decentralized system. … if Africans were successful in governance in the past, colonialism was equally successful in breaking the traditions of governance through conquest and status. The indigenous political systems were restructured to serve the interest of the colonial state.
Though Igbo Ohacracy tradition forbids such ruler-ship of the Warrant Chiefs, it promoted the illegal practice of the British colonial powers over the Igbo. Individual power usurpers, appointees and illegitimate authorities became the order of the day; who used their new acquired positions for personal gains and interests, and hence were strongly corrupt and not meaningfully considered.
It is evidently clear that the introduction of the warrant chiefs system changed the decentralised Igbo Ohacracy system into pure centralised system. As noted above, the participation of individuals and communities were totally alienated in governance. It was the same system that operated in the Roman Catholic Church when these same warrant chiefs decided on behalf of the communities’ of what positions or plots of land where the new Catholic Churches were to erect their churches. Power and authority were taken away from the people and invested on individual warrant chiefs who became the self-appointed link or spokes-person between the Catholic Church personnel and the communities. However, the event of the Vatican II had upturned this position by encouraging dialogue with cultures in recognition of different cultural practices that is of high values that could mend bridges between the Catholic Church and the Igbo Ohacracy system. The next section discusses the third and final area of the contemporary time and its implications on perspectives of chieftaincy among the Igbo Ohacracy order.
5.6.2.3 The Post-Colonial or Contemporary Era of Chieftaincy Practice At this final juncture of chieftaincy development, the event of centralizing governance among the Igbo Ohacracy took place. A. E. Afigbo (a renowned and prominent Igbo scholar and historian) chaired the 1976 committee of the then two East-Central States namely, Imo and Anambra States that made the present day recommendation to have the Igbo ‘Traditional Rulers’ established in its present nature and state in the Igbo Ohacracy South-eastern Nigeria (see Afigbo 2005:209-222). This arrangement was made as it was said for the South-east to
“look like the rest parts of Nigeria” where centralised governance had worked but not among the Igbo Ohacracy society.
This period and era witnessed the third mutation of the chieftaincy practice among the Igbo.
By this time the ‘warrant chiefs’ had fallen75 off and transformed into ‘Kings’ in the Igbo Ohacracy order. Thus the ‘kings’ came about in the Igbo Ohacracy decentralised system. In essence, the centralised system alienates further the participation of the Igbo Ohacracy individuals and communities in governance, thereby investing power and authority in the hands of one person and his so called cabinet chiefs that was never sanctioned by the people.
The contemporary era of chieftaincy as practiced among the Igbo Ohacracy order can be defined with local influences of regional and internal administrations which the Northern and Western regions achieved by the establishment of ‘Houses of Chiefs’ in the mid-1950s. The Eastern region followed suit later since to establish this ‘House of Chiefs’ would mean they will miss out of regional developments that followed (Ehirim ‘Ohuzo’ 2007:4) afterwards. At the outbreak of the military coup d’etat on January 15 1966, the Eastern House of Chiefs was dissolved. During the subsequent civil war between Nigeria and Biafra in the years of 1970- 75 the traditional chieftaincy holders did not play any visible role. At the end of the civil war, the local participation in development was understood purely in ‘modern’ terms and was believed to mean mobilization of local population through self-help by Town (development) Unions and other communal associations (Ehirim ‘Ohuzo’ 2007:5).
In essence, the emergence of the Development Unions/Associations in the 1970s after the war, (which will be discussed in the next section) became instrumental towards rural governance. Employing rural development as a way to reclaim the true past of the Igbo Ohacracy system, the role of chieftaincy holders almost went out of extinction as they were known unlike in the recent past. Ubah (1987:181) concludes by acknowledging the new role of Development Unions arguing that “as the Igbo looked ahead, what remained of traditional leadership was no more than a relic of that aspect of their cultural heritage that was fast disappearing.” This lament comes from Ubah’s (1987:181) realisation that the Unions represented a new and dynamic authority structure “which detracted from and undermined traditional leadership.”
75 The falling away of the warrant chief system was owed to the fact that the system was highly corrupt and could not stand the furry of the angry mod that regularly fall out with the corrupt officials who extorted money from the masses. The 1929 women’s protest was a clear example (Amadiume 2015:42-49).
Finally, the three phases or perspectives of chieftaincy this section has discussed, shifting from honorary titles to kingship positions brought enormous changes that took a deep strain on the decentralised system of governance among the Igbo Ohacracy people. It is clear that not only did this new development around chieftaincy caused a huge setback on individual and group participation in governance, but it also demotivates individual persons’ aspiration of power who would rather work hard in the culture for recognition and acknowledgement.
The personal pride and future anticipation of young people to achieve through agriculture and other economic activities in the Igbo land was defeated or crushed by this singular change of purpose around chieftaincy titles.
Nevertheless, this study is hopeful that as the lay people among the Igbo Ohacracy tradition continues to seek for the way forward, the Vatican II event that encouraged inculturation or the following of Christ through one’s cultures still gives the Igbo Ohacracy a hope to renew itself from within. The Vatican II has therefore encouraged the need for accepting and embracing valuable cultural practices such as chieftaincy (see Cadorette 2009:197).
Inculturation in this sense would mean therefore to be active participant in relation to personal experience with Christ as in the words of Okure and Thei (1990:95) that this is “…when Christ becomes incarnated in and with76 the people thereby become part and parcel of their culture, religion and well-being…” This hope will amend the lost values around chieftaincy titles as it remains the motivation for hard work for the better and common good of all who live in the land.
The next section will describe the four major ‘development unions’ that have progressed common participation among the Igbo Ohacracy order. Hopefully, this could influence further participation of the Igbo people within the Catholic Church context, influencing change towards a decentralised order of governance.