Examining the mediating role of Ghana’s customary institutions in resolving the 2012 electoral conflict

ABSTRACT

The reality of the democratization of various African states in the 1990s has often failed to match the promise of democracy. Disputes over electoral outcomes have been commonplace, often resulting violence and social unrest. Such disputes point to possible limitations of the capacity of formal institutions such as the electoral commissions (and its associated electoral laws) and the judiciary to ensuring their peaceful resolution even where there may be no actual large-scale electoral violence. This paper examines the 2012 presidential election in Ghana. It argues that in addition to these institutional mechanisms there is an important role played by the traditional authorities exercise of informal conflict resolution strategies and the positive values in the (political) culture. Drawing on reports of journalists, the views of politicians and judicial records the paper shows how the preventive mediation of traditional authorities helped to defuse tensions and prevented a potentially violent situation during the electoral process and its disputed outcomes.

KEYWORDS:

• Democratization
• customary institutions
• electoral commission
• electoral conflict
• judiciary

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christopher Appiah-Thompson

Christopher Appiah-Thompson is a Casual Academic at the Faculty of Business and Law, The University of Newcastle, Australia.

Jim Jose

Jim Jose is Emeritus Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Faculty of Business and Law, The University of Newcastle, Australia.

Tod Moore

Tod Moore is Lecturer at the Faculty of Business and Law, The University of Newcastle, Australia.