




































 

1 

AN ASSESSMENT OF KWASI WIREDU'S DEMOCRACY AND CONSENSUS 

IN AFRICAN TRADITIONAL POLITICS: A PLEA FOR A NON PARTY 

POLITY. 

Mayokun Joyce OLOWONIYI 

ABSTRACT 

At the onset of democracy in Africa, it was ordinarily a tool by the colonialist to make 

Africans believe they were free but this was not the actual case obtainable in reality. 

Hence, the Africa's drive towards democracy during the past years could be said to be 

the effect of the sustained Western pressure. This paper seeks to examine Wiredu's idea 

of consensual democracy through the assessment of his claim about common interest 

and rational discussion for substantive representation. The paper discovers that 

democracy as practised in Africa is not what democracy is and recommends that for 

Africa to progress, there may be the need to jettison what we currently practise as 

democracy but need to adapt, change, and even in some cases abandon some traditional 

ideas and behaviours. The methods of critical analysis and reflective argumentation 

were adopted to pursue the aims of this study. 

INTRODUCTION  

Inter and intra political instability in Africa can be traced to the effect of Western 

colonization on Africa. Hence, the Africa's drive towards democracy during the past 

years could be said to be the effect of the sustained Western pressure to adopt the multi-

party way of life. Though Africans have gained so-called 'freedom' but this is yet to 

reflect any substantial influence on the African by building on the strength of the 

African's indigenous political institutions. To do this, in his paper, Democracy and 

Consensus in African Traditional Politics: A Plea for a Non-party Polity, Kwasi Wiredu 

offers a strong defense for a return to what he calls 'consensual democracy' in Africa. 

Consensual democracy is a political system that dates back to the pre-colonial Africa. 

 Wiredu traces the roots of consensus to African societies where he finds that 'there is 

considerable evidence that decision by consensus was often the order of the day in 

African deliberations and on principle (Wiredu 1995: 53). With this, he places emphasis 

on the role of consensus in the decision-making process in the Traditional African life 

and as a result of its utility in the past, pleaded for a return to this consensual democracy 

or nonparty polity as he called it. For him, the key to effectively address contemporary 

issues lies in reclaiming and revitalizing indigenous traditions that have been suppressed 

and degraded in the wake of colonialism. 



Olowoniyi                            An Assessment Of Kwasi Wiredu's Democracy And Consensus  

2 

Wiredu's position has been taken up in various forms by thinkers such as, Dennis 

Masaka (Masaka 2019: 68-78), Michael Onyebuchi Eze (Eze 2008: 386-399), 

Emmanuel Ani (Ani 2014:342-365), Bernard Matolino (2016: 36-55) among others. 

This paper seeks to examine Wiredu's idea of consensus through the assessment of his 

claim about common interest and rational discussion for substantive representation in 

his plea for a non-party polity in the modern Africa or the post-colonial Africa viz a viz 

its practical viability. This will be done with a view to offer some modifications to 

Wiredu's theory in order to make it more suitable for practice in Africa.  

The paper has three sections. The first entails an overview of the traditional accounts of 

Wiredu on the idea of consensual democracy. The second section highlighted the major 

issues that has been generated by some scholars given Wiredu's analysis while the last 

is a re appraisal of Wiredu's argument.  

The methods of critical analysis and reflective argumentation were adopted to pursue 

the aims of this study. 

TRADITIONAL CONSENSUS ON WIREDU'S ACCOUNT   

African Traditional Political system for Wiredu displayed considerable variety. There 

were societies with centralised social authority or order as well as societies with less 

centralised social authority/order. The idea of consensus was basically appreciated 

according to Wiredu in the context of the second variant where the exercise of authority 

rested purely on moral and metaphysical prestige. Although it is also practiced in some 

of the most centralised societies of that era. Wiredu bases his analysis on the Ashanti 

Political System which is one of the centralised society of that time. The Ashantis are a 

matrilineal group and the lineage is their basic political unit.  (Wiredu 1995: 55) 

In Ashanti society, decision was by consensus at all levels but the first point at which 

consensus first makes itself felt in the Ashantis' political system was at the point which 

the head of the lineage is elected. The principle of consensus was a premeditated option 

based on the belief that 'ultimately the interests of all members of the society are the 

same' (Wiredu 1995: 57), although this belief remains challengeable. 

Consensus for Wiredu plays important roles in the Ashantis' traditional life. Evidences 

in decision-making has been shown as a rule by consensus. Although consensus was 

not a peculiarly political phenomenon, but it is a manifestation of an immanence 

(inherent) approach to social interaction (Wiredu 1995: 53). The implication of this is 

that social interaction or relatedness of everyone to everyone else was inherent in the 

African traditional set up given the lineage approach. This is because for Wiredu, 

consensual basis for joint action was taken as axiomatic. (Wiredu 1995: 53). The idea 

of consensus in the traditional Ashanti's society was of importance to Wiredu because 

of the bearing it has on democracy. Current forms of democracy are generally systems 

based on the majority principle which he refer to as majoritarian democracy while those 

based on consensus as consensual democracy. For Wiredu, both are forms of democracy 



                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(3), 2021  
ISSN: 2786-9792  

3 

because their government was by consent and subject to the control of the people as 

expressed through their representatives.   

In Wiredu's analysis, the Ashantis prize rational discussion as an avenue for reaching 

consensus among adults with the capacity for elegant and persuasive discourse. The 

idea of persuasive discussion however needs re-examination. I shall return to this later. 

The pursuit of consensus was a deliberate effort to go beyond decision by majority 

opinion (Wiredu 1995: 57) which he regards as majoritarian democracy. 

In order to attain peoples' consent, Wiredu holds that there are various ways but one is 

the most admirable way and it is when the representative has direct approval of the 

people and is closely connected with their aspirations. In view of this, Wiredu argues 

that working towards the attainment of consensus is a better form of democracy 

compared to majoritarianism. This is because in consensual democracy, (1) the political 

players seek each other in their efforts to reach a consensual position whereas in 

majoritarian politics, the losers become the opposition and may oppose just for the sake 

of opposing. Hence, competition for power increases and position are not reached 

because of might and (2) it offers substantive representation over and above formal 

representation.  His emphasis on substantive representation is due to the fact that one of 

the major political challenge facing democracy in Africa is the lack of adequate 

representation and participation of citizens in democratic processes and institutions. 

This is highly manifested in the way in which power is vested in some sectional group 

within the African society to the exclusion of others within the same society. In respect 

of this, Wiredu emphasises the incompatibility of majoritarian democracy as a means 

of decision making and governance with consensual democracy in the African 

traditional life. 

Wiredu further distinguishes his idea of non-party from the idea of one-party. For him, 

one-party does not have any ancestry in the African consensual democracy and any 

attempt to compare the two yields an illusory analogy. Given the title of Wiredu's paper 

however, it seems there is a little contradiction. This is because, in the broad sense of 

the term, Wiredu acknowledge the existence of parties in the traditional system wherein 

his consensual democracy. There is the need for a clarification about the strict or broad 

sense in his title. 

ISSUES GENERATED BY WIREDU'S  PLEA 

Wiredu's ideology has been severally challenged by scholars. In what follows this paper 

briefly identify some of these several issues. On the issue of consensus, Emmanuel Eze 

disagree with Kwasi Wiredu over what was responsible for arriving at consensual 

positions. For the workability of consensus in the Ashanti traditional setting, Wiredu 

holds that rational persuasion was responsible for converting people from their contrary 

view to a consensual view. Eze holds a contrary view. For him, reason alone could not 

have been responsible for the conversion of people. There are other factors besides 

reason and these other factors must be taken into consideration as influencing decision-



Olowoniyi                            An Assessment Of Kwasi Wiredu's Democracy And Consensus  

4 

making processes that would lead to consensus (Eze 1997: 317). Another issue Eze has 

with Wiredu's position is that Eze does not believe that the factors that worked well in 

the traditional society would still be able to work well in this modern society and 

therefore there is the need to discard them and invent new ones unlike Wiredu's position 

that we should return to them (Eze 1997:318).   In respect of the above, Eze is of the 

opinion that consensus should not be seen as easily workable as Wiredu suggests. 

Although I do not intend to follow Eze's line of argument in addressing the idea of 

consensual democracy but I think Eze actually misinterpreted Wiredu's idea by his use 

of 'reason alone'. 

In line with Eze, Paul Hountondji on the other hand suggests that Africans must make a 

'clean break' with the premodern past in order to address the most urgent demands of 

the present. Modernization, for him, requires a mental; orientation commensurate with 

the problems of the present, not an attempt to resurrect ideas from societies of the distant 

past (Hountondji 1996: 48). 

Although Emmanuel Ani also raised objection against Wiredu in Support of Eze but 

from an addition as well as different angle. From an additional perspective, he shares 

same position as Eze by expressing his doubt on the possibility of purely rational 

deliberation leading to consensus; and from a different perspective, he examined 

Wiredu's account of traditional African consensual practices by examining the issues of 

immanence, pure rationality and their implications for deliberative theory (Ani 

2014:345). Due to his interpretation of Wiredu, he rejects Wiredu's suggestion of the 

immanence of consensus to Africans and argues that immanence should be seen as a 

human feature as opposed to a peculiarly African characteristic. Ani proposes Aristotle's 

three components of persuasion as more appropriate in influencing the acceptability of 

a position. Bernard Matolino however read misinterpretation into Ani's understanding 

of Wiredu by identifying a kind of relationship between the words of Wiredu viz: 

'immanence' and 'axiomatic' (Matolino 2016 : 39-40) as well as by using Joe Teffo's set 

up description on  communocracy ( Joe Teffo 2004:446). Matolino further Wiredu's 

outline on decisional influence as not so much at odds with what Ani is suggesting 

(Matolino 2016 : 44) 

Olanipekun among others also raised a critique on Wiredu's idea on consensus 

(Olanipekun 2020). Using the tool of analyses, he juxtapose consensual democracy with 

its majoritarian democracy counterpart as identified by Wiredu, Olanipekun argues that 

the two are not mutually exclusive. For him the implications and challenges of 

majoritarian democracy identified by Wiredu do not necessarily undermine majoritarian 

democracy, neither do they make Wiredu suggested decision by consensus a workable 

decision making process in the contemporary African society. He concludes that at 

certain level of discussion, Wiredu's idea of consensual democracy has some similarities 

and also faces similar challenges to those that majoritarian democracy faces.  

In support of Wiredu's consensual democracy, Barry Hallen further gives substantive 

grounds for revisiting Wiredu's proposal of consensual governance in Africa. In his 



                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(3), 2021  
ISSN: 2786-9792  

5 

article, 'Reconsidering the Case for Consensual Governance in Africa', Hallen 

argues for the necessity of revisiting the conversations around consensual 

democracy in African States given the serious political instabilities being 

experienced in liberal democratic experimentation on post-colonial Africa, despite 

its dismissal as unrealistic. For Hallen, consensus is the 'intentional, negotiated, 

rational exchange that are taken as a conventional part of everyday life' (Hallen 

2019:5).  

To corroborate Wiredu's point, Barry Hallen further observes that interpersonal 

relationship in African societies have always been generally on any level a prioritized 

consensus, that is, interpersonal relationships in Africa Society is primarily consensus 

oriented. This is because Hallen further supports Wiredu's conception that traditional 

African societies were essentially communalistic in form and operation with interactive 

communication which involved a sense of belonging, connectivity and sharing at its 

base. According to Hallen, the beauty of the consensual process is that the voice of the 

minority is heard and incorporated during decision making process. Hallen attempts the 

negation of the authoritarian change against the political structure of the pre-colonial 

African Society through his introduction of the term 'palaver'.  He argues that palaver 

'has the positive sense of organised and open debate on various issues in which 

everybody, regardless of age or sex is encouraged to participate with a view to reaching 

consensus and keeping the community closely linked'(Hallen 2019: 16). 

In order to drive home his points, Hallen further shows the relevance of concensus to 

postcolonial African societies even if multicultural or multi-ethnic on the grounds that 

it is a non-party system which promotes and sustains effective participation of the 

citizens in governance using John Rawls' idea of overlapping consensus in reaching 

political agreement about justice and the principles of social organisation among 

plurality of ideas that cut across different individuals' belief systems such as religion, 

ethics and aesthetics(Hallen 2019: 18)  

Aside the above mentioned issues, the arguments of Wiredu and some other scholars 

have actually degenerated beyond the examination of the terms and concepts entailed 

in the argument into a major issue. The major discuss is between the cultural revivalist 

and that of the cultural rejectionist as an argument  on tradition and modernity; which 

is however beyond the scope of this paper but which can be a subject for further 

examination.  

ASSESSMENT OF WIREDU CONSENSUAL DEMOCRACY 

Given some of the issues generated by Wiredu's plea raised in the above section, this 

paper does not seek a repetition of the above listed arguments, rather it seeks to critique 

Wiredu's idea of consensus through the assessment of his claim about common interest 

and rational discussion for substantive representation in his plea for a non-party polity 

in the modern Africa. 



Olowoniyi                            An Assessment Of Kwasi Wiredu's Democracy And Consensus  

6 

 To begin with, Wiredu's attempt to look inward into the indigenous past of the African 

society to solve the problem of Africa itself is a worthwhile attempt. It even substantiate 

his arguments being an African himself, as he is arguing from a point of view which is 

not strange to him. It is actually generating a democratization process not externally 

generated but that which takes full cognizance of the internal cultural dynamics of the 

society in which the changes are being introduced; as well as that which is hospitable to 

the consensual values of the society (Walama 2004 : 440)  

 Although it may be argued that Wiredu presented consensual democracy as if it is free 

of problems hence his call for return to it. Consensual democracy has contemporary 

problems that come with it, hence a complete return to it may not be too healthy for 

contemporary Africa. Rather, a return to it while rejecting the errors within it will be 

better. Although he acknowledge that consensus does not imply that 'it was always 

attained as nowhere was African society a realm of unbroken harmony (Wiredu 1995: 

53) and this may be taken that he did not over exaggerate his idea of consensus.  

The assertion that democracy is centred upon consensus in the Ashanti society by 

Wiredu has its root on the claim that all humans have common interest. This is why he 

holds 'yes, human beings have the ability eventually to cut through their differences to 

the rock bottom identity of interest' (Wiredu 1995: 57). But is the claim true? If, it is, 

then Wiredu's call for a return to consensual democracy may be acceptable even for the 

entire human race and possibly not Africa alone, but I think otherwise. Hence, a need 

for another suggestion or revision of the suggested.  

Arising from the above, human beings in general can share some core common interest 

such as the need for food but given the human natural nature, there will always remain 

some complex or peculiar individual interest unshared. For instance, in every society, 

there will be the rich, who will always want to maintain their wealth as well as the poor 

who will also want a more equitable distribution of resources. There will always be 

interest that are directly opposing to those of others. This is similar to what Eze implies 

when he countered Wiredu's analogy of the Ashanti's Art Motif of the two headed 

Crocodile. According to Eze, the two headed crocodile may fully know that the food is 

heading for a shared stomach and yet, one may still wish to experience the sheer joy of 

chewing and eating while depriving the other head of this masticatory experience (Eze. 

E.C: 1997). The implication of this is that Wiredu's claim that consensus has its root on 

the common interest of humans does not hold and likewise, the subsequent claim that 

human beings have the eventual ability to cut through their differences to the rock 

bottom identity of interests.  

But, the question that arise from this is that when consensus is not reached such as he 

acknowledge that 'certain situations do indeed precipitate exhaustive disjunctions which 

no dialogic accommodations can mediate (Wiredu 1995: 54), what approach then 

becomes useful? And will Wiredu be willing to accept that approach over and above his 

earlier plea? Wiredu suggests 'willing suspension of disbelief in the prevailing option 

on the part of the residual minority' as a tenable solution. This is one of the ways I think 



                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(3), 2021  
ISSN: 2786-9792  

7 

his theory or analysis becomes contradictory to his substantive representation in the 

Ashanti political system.  

Substantive representation in the Ashantis' society is faced with some fundamental 

problem in itself. First, it is still regarded as representation, even at its very best, hence 

the interest of the represented may not be fully 'represented'. This is because a leader 

who is representing may either deliberately or otherwise present his own interest as that 

of the 'represented' and there has been such examples  even in the African traditional 

past . In a situation where this occur will it still be termed as consensual or not? 

Another argument against Wiredu here is that substantive does not equate to total 

representation and so what becomes of the few left out, if only a substantive aspect is 

taken care of.  What becomes of the minority left? Are they not the ones the so-called 

substantive in Wiredu's argument supposed to take care of? Subsequently, will 

substantive representation not indirectly equate to majoritarianism which Wiredu 

rejected in the end and thereby leads Wiredu's argument into a reductio ad absurdum. 

This is similar to what Olanipekun argues in his paper. For Olanipekun 2020, Wiredu's 

idea of consensual democracy shares at certain level of discussion, some similarities 

and also faces similar challenges with majoritarian democracy. This is why Olanipekun 

concludes that democracy and consensus are not logically speaking, mutually exclusive. 

The argument here therefore is that if consensual democracy and majoritarian 

democracy are both be-deviled, then, why should Wiredu argue that one should be 

preferred to the other? 

Even if we agree for the purpose of argument that there is a common interest/good of 

the people, the idea is inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours. Now, I think 

Wiredu might argue that if we return to a non-party system like he suggested, then, it 

will or may become useful like it did in the past. This will lead me to another argument 

against Wiredu. He portrayed the African tradition system as that which is a non-party 

system, but in the real sense of it, it is not actually the case that there were no classes in 

then African society. We have the rich as well as the poor, only that according to 

Nkrumah, the rich then were not in the position to oppress the less privileged. As a 

matter of fact, there were classes and this indicates that there were parties. This is 

because the dominant classes will operate on consensus at their class levels while the 

dominated classes will also have theirs at their own level.  

In the light of the above, this paper suggests the development of a political institution 

that move away from authoritarian rule (which is peculiar to modernization through 

colonialism), toward forms of government that enhance the liberty and welfare of all 

citizens, rather than a selected few. This is what Jay A. Ciaffa refers to as the 'modernity 

of democratization (Ciaffa 2008: 122). Although the idea of over emphasizing the 

successes that come with science and modern technology (through colonialism) over 

and above that of the political, moral/social, and religious (through our tradition) is not 

what can be called real development. For there to be progress in any society, there may 

be the need to adapt, change, and even in some cases abandon some traditional ideas 



Olowoniyi                            An Assessment Of Kwasi Wiredu's Democracy And Consensus  

8 

and behaviours. Not only this, it may also involve borrowing and adapting ideas from 

other cultural contexts.  

CONCLUSION 

This paper examined Wiredu's idea of consensus through the assessment of his claim 

about common interest and rational discussion for substantive representation in his plea 

for a non-party polity in the modern Africa or the post-colonial Africa. This paper 

argued that although human beings in general can share some core common interest but 

given the human natural nature, there will always remain some complex or peculiar 

individual interest unshared. Hence, as a root for consensual democracy, common 

interest as argued by Wiredu may not hold. Also, this paper argued that substantive 

representation which Wiredu used as justification for consensual democracy also 

indirectly equate to majoritarianism which Wiredu rejected. This hereby leads Wiredu's 

argument into a reductio ad absurdum. 

Without totally agreeing with Wiredu on his 'return call' but with some modifications to 

Wiredu's theory, this paper suggested, buttressing it the previous works of some 

scholars, a way to make it more suitable for practice in Africa given the issues entailed 

in todays' Africa. 

REFERENCES 

Ani, E.I. (2014). On Traditional African Consensual Rationality, The Journal of 

Political Philosophy Vol. 22 No 3, 342-365 

Ciaffa Jay A. (2008). Tradition and Modernity in Postcolonial African Philosophy, 

Humanitas  Vol. XXI, Nos.1and 2, 121-145 

Eze, E.C. (1997). 'Democracy or Consensus? A response to Wiredu' in E.C. Eze (Eds.), 

Post Colonial African Philosophy; A Critical Reader, (pp. 313-323). Cambridge, 

Massachusetts:  Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 

Hallen, B. (2019). 'Reconsidering the Case for Consensual Government in Africa,' 

Second Order:An African Journal of Philosophy(New Series)Vol 3, No 1, 1-22 

Hountondji, P. (1996). African Philosophy:  Myth and Reality. 2nd ed. Bloomington: 

Indiana University Press p 48 

Teffo, J. (2004). 'Democracy, Kingship and Consensus; A South African perspective'. 

K.  

Wiredu (Eds.), A Companion to African Philosophy (pp. 443-449). USA: 

Blackwell Publishing Ltd 

Matolino, B. (2016). 'Rationality and Consensus in Kwasi Wiredu's Traditional African  

Polities', Theoria, A Journal of Social and Political Theory, Vol 63, No 146, 36-

55 



                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(3), 2021  
ISSN: 2786-9792  

9 

Matolino, B. (2018). Consensus and Democracy in Africa, South Africa: NICS (Pty) 

Ltd. Pp 

Olanipekun, V.O. (2020). Democracy and Consensus in Traditional Africa: A Critique 

of  

Kwasi Wiredu, Inkanyiso, Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol 12 No, 

1-10 

Walama, E. (2004). 'Government by Consensus: An Analysis of a Traditional Form of  

Democracy' K. Wiredu (Eds.), A Companion to African Philosophy (pp. 

435432). USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 

Wiredu, K. (1995). Democracy and Consensus in African Traditional Politics: A Plea 

For  

A  Non-Party Polity. The Centennial Review, Vol 39 No 1, 53-64 



 

 

 


