Is Kwasi Wiredu's Emphasis on Consensus Still Valid?

Paper Abstract: Kwasi Wiredu has been a champion of non-party democracy where people vote for the leader who solves problems and not authoritarian leaders. The leaders are selected on the basis of consensus and so are the resolution of intractable issues. Wiredu has been criticized for romaticizing traditional Akan model of consensus in Ghana vis-a-vis multiparty democracy. Wiredu had been criticized for naively legitimizing one party system which has been the norm in most parts of the colonial world. This paper would examine whether Wiredu's approach leads to a one party system where there is little discussion or consensus than a more amicable multiparty political system. On the other hand, Ghana has been one of the more stable postcolonial nation-states in spite of authoritarian interludes in its post-independence history. Has Wiredu's emphasis on people's consent and the method of consensus helped the Ghanaian political system which has seldom been acknowledged? How has other postcolonial democracies such as India have negotiated political, social, religious and cultural upheavals? There are parallels in the Constitution building process. Wiredu distinguished between cultural universals and particulars. Did the Indian Constitution making process anticipate what Wiredu was advocating for Ghana, in particular, and Africa in general? Is the way forward is to dehyphenate cultural universals and cultural particulars, namely, ethical principles from customs and manners? I would argue that Africa needs Wiredu's emphasis on consensus more than ever.