Saeed is an adjunct lecturer in the Law, Humanities, and Social Sciences Department at Ashesi University. He has a Master of Laws Degree from the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, and is qualified to practice law in Ghana and the State of New York. Saeed is a Senior Associate at a leading Accra-based law firm and has extensive experience handling complex civil and criminal disputes. He has also consulted for international organizations, including the World Bank, on projects aimed at promoting development in Ghana. Saeed has experience in diverse industries, including insurance, manufacturing, oil and gas, and construction.
In recent years, the illegal mining crisis (“Galamsey”) has arguably become Ghana’s most pressing environmental and social challenge. The destruction of vast swathes of land, the contamination of water bodies, and the associated health risks are daily reminders of the urgency required to address this crisis. Galamsey is not just an environmental risk, but a reflection of the broader societal crisis in Ghana – a crisis where leaders consistently fail to uphold their obligations to the people, and where followers remain largely passive, reinforcing the status quo. The combination of leadership failure and a passive citizenry creates a system where unethical practices go unchecked. This furthers a culture of complacency, which enables leaders to prioritize self-interest over the common good. Theories of social contract, as well as the concepts of servant leadership and active followership, converge to provide a useful lens through which we can examine this issue.
The essence of the social contract is simple – individuals willingly give up certain freedoms to form a society governed by mutual agreement. Leaders, in turn, are entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the rights, property, and well-being of the people. In exchange, leaders derive their authority and legitimacy from the consent of the governed, with the expectation that they will govern fairly, ethically, and in the public’s best interest. Yet, in Ghana, this contract seems to be systematically undermined by a leadership culture that prioritizes personal gain over public service and interest. Compounding this issue is a system that not only tolerates, but often rewards such behaviour, alongside a culture in which followers hesitate to hold their leaders accountable.
The Missing Social Contract
The social contract, a cornerstone of political philosophy explored by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke, offers profound insights into the foundations of governance. Hobbes, in his seminal work Leviathan, describes the “state of nature” as a “nasty, brutish, and short” existence, characterized by the constant threat of violence and disorder. To avoid this, individuals form a social contract, giving up their freedom in exchange for the security and order provided by the state. Locke, in his formulatio,n argues that the role of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property, and when a leader does not uphold these obligations, citizens have the right to challenge and even ‘overthrow’ them
In Ghana, the galamsey crisis is a prime example of how the social contract has broken down. Leaders are entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding natural resources and ensuring that laws protecting the environment are enforced (1992 Constitution of Ghana, Chapter 21). However, many political and traditional leaders have failed to uphold these duties, either turning a blind eye to the environmental destruction caused by illegal mining or, worse, benefiting from the very activities they are supposed to regulate. This failure to protect the collective public interest constitutes a direct breach of the social contract, as leaders are expected to utilize the nation’s resources for the benefit of all, not just a select few.
The government’s inability or unwillingness to effectively address the galamsey crisis highlights a broader issue. Weak enforcement of laws, coupled with a lack of political will, has allowed illegal mining to flourish. Essentially, in Ghana, the consequences for environmental destruction and governance failures are minimal. The result is a vicious cycle where leaders feel empowered to act with impunity, confident that they will face little to no accountability.
Servant Leadership: A Missing Element
Servant leadership, a concept popularized by Robert Greenleaf, posits that a leader’s true role is to serve others and prioritize the needs of the community over personal gain. Servant leaders are expected to act as stewards, focusing on the well-being of those they lead and prioritizing the needs of the community over personal ambition. They lead by example, fostering trust, empathy, and collaboration. For instance, imagine a community leader in a mining town who, rather than exploiting the area’s resources for personal gain, advocates for sustainable practices that preserve the environment while providing economic opportunities for residents. This leader might organize workshops to educate citizens on alternative livelihoods or work with policymakers to ensure stricter regulations on illegal mining, demonstrating a commitment to the long-term well-being of the community. In the Ghanaian context, this model of leadership is sorely lacking. Rather than serving the public, many leaders in Ghana have used their positions to further personal interests at the expense of the communities they are supposed to serve. The result? Galamsey.
The galamsey crisis vividly illustrates this failure of leadership. Communities affected by illegal mining often suffer from health problems due to contaminated water sources. Additionally, the loss of farmland undermines food security, forcing many families into economic hardship. The widespread environmental degradation, including deforestation and soil erosion, exacerbates climate vulnerability and disrupts local ecosystems. These issues have profound long-term implications for the country’s economic and social stability, including reduced agricultural output, increased healthcare costs, and displacement of communities. Furthermore, the destruction of natural resources diminishes the potential for future economic development, weakening Ghana’s ability to attract sustainable investment or achieve environmental conservation goals. The concept of servant leadership is not just about protecting the environment or enforcing laws. It is also about empowering citizens to engage in the governance process. A true servant leader would work to educate communities about the dangers of galamsey, create sustainable alternatives to illegal mining, and foster a culture of accountability. However, the lack of servant leadership in Ghana has left a vacuum where leaders fail to inspire or empower their followers, leaving citizens to fend for themselves in a corrupt and broken system.
The Passive and Complicit Follower
Leadership cannot be examined in isolation. The behavior of followers (in this case, citizens) plays a crucial role in shaping the dynamics of leadership. Effective followership can inspire accountability, encourage ethical decision-making, and set a standard for collective responsibility. When followers actively question and hold leaders accountable, they establish a feedback loop that forces leaders to align their actions with the values and expectations of the community. Barbara Kellerman categorizes followers into five types: Isolates, Bystanders, Participants, Activists, and Diehards. Isolates tend to be completely detached and uninvolved, Bystanders are passive observers who do not participate, Participants engage moderately, activists are highly engaged, and diehards tend to be deeply committed and willing to go to great lengths for or against leaders. In Ghana, most citizens appear to fall into the categories of bystanders or participants. They may observe the corruption, mismanagement, and environmental destruction caused by galamsey, but few take active steps to hold leaders accountable or demand change.
This passive followership is a significant barrier to addressing the galamsey crisis and broader leadership issues in Ghana. While leaders have a responsibility to serve their communities, citizens also have a role to play in ensuring that leaders fulfil their obligations. However, in many cases, Ghanaian citizens are more likely to tolerate leadership failings than challenge them. This reluctance to engage in activism or demand accountability creates an environment in which leaders can act without fear of consequence, further eroding the social contract.
Cultural factors further complicate the role of followership in Ghana. In many Ghanaian communities, the practice of gift-giving is deeply embedded in social customs. While gifts are often seen as a token of gratitude, this practice has evolved into a form of bribery that undermines both leadership and followership. As Maame AS Mensa-Bonsu rightfully points out, the act of gift-giving has often blurred the lines between appreciation and corruption. In the context of galamsey, this cultural practice can manifest as mining operators offering gifts to local leaders, regulators, or community members to secure their silence or complicity. Leaders, in turn, may come to expect such gifts, creating an informal system where ethical boundaries are ignored. This practice not only facilitates illegal mining but also perpetuates corruption by normalizing exchanges that undermine accountability and reinforce unethical behaviour. Followers who participate in this culture, whether through acceptance or compliance, inadvertently enable the environmental and social harm caused by galamsey.
The Need for Accountability and Active Citizenship
The current state of leadership and followership in Ghana highlights the urgent need for a shift in both roles. Leaders in Ghana must adopt the principles of servant leadership, with a renewed emphasis on ethical governance, environmental stewardship, and community empowerment. This begins with creating transparent systems that allow for public scrutiny of decisions and resource allocation, such as publishing budgets, policies, and progress reports accessible to all citizens. Leaders must also establish clear ethical guidelines and accountability mechanisms, including independent oversight bodies to monitor compliance with these standards. Citizens, on their part, should be equipped with tools to hold leaders accountable, such as education on civic rights, community forums to voice concerns, and accessible legal channels to challenge unethical actions. This requires a cultural shift where ethical behaviour is both expected and rewarded, and systemic reforms are implemented to discourage corruption, such as whistleblower protections and stronger penalties for misconduct. Only through intentional, collaborative efforts can Ghana move towards leadership that truly serves the public good.
However, true change cannot occur without a corresponding shift in followership. Ghanaian citizens must move beyond passive observation and take an active role in governance. This involves holding leaders accountable by actively monitoring their actions, questioning their decisions, and insisting on transparency in governance. Citizens must demand that leaders fulfil their obligations under the social contract through regular civic engagement, such as participating in public discussions, utilizing legal frameworks to challenge unethical practices, and advocating for systemic reforms that promote accountability and integrity. Citizens must recognize that they are not powerless, but rather, have the ability to influence leadership through civic engagement, advocacy, and more participation in the democratic process.
There must be a cultural shift in the practice of gift-giving. While deeply rooted in tradition, the practice of offering gifts to leaders should not be allowed to morph into bribery. Both leaders and followers must understand the difference between a token of appreciation and a corrupt exchange. Parliament, in collaboration with anti-corruption bodies and civil society organizations, should establish clear guidelines and legal frameworks to delineate the boundaries of acceptable gift-giving. These measures should define what constitutes a gift versus a bribe, set monetary limits, and outline enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the practice does not undermine ethical governance. By creating and enforcing these rules, the government can provide citizens and leaders with a shared understanding of ethical standards, reducing ambiguity and promoting accountability.
Conclusion – Rebuilding the Social Contract
The challenges posed by galamsey and broader issues of corruption and leadership in Ghana will not be solved overnight. However, the first step towards addressing these issues is acknowledging the need for change in both leadership and followership. Ghanaian leaders must embrace the principles of servant leadership, while citizens must shift from passive observers to active participants in governance. The October 2024 protests are a good start and suggest a shift in the mentality of Ghanaian citizens.
The social contract is not a one-sided agreement; it requires both leaders and followers to play their part. If leaders fail to uphold their responsibilities, citizens must be prepared to challenge them through legal means, civic engagement, and public advocacy. At the same time, citizens must reflect on their role as followers and recognize that meaningful change starts with their own engagement.
Only through a combined effort of ethical leadership and active followership can Ghana hope to overcome the challenges posed by galamsey and restore the balance of the social contract. The time for passive followership is over. By holding leaders accountable and fostering a culture of responsibility and ethical governance, Ghanaian society can begin to rebuild trust in its institutions and ensure a sustainable future for all. Ghanaian citizens must rise to the challenge and ensure that their leaders serve the public good or risk the continued erosion of the social contract that binds us all.
