Can we have 'Kings' and by extension 'kingdoms' in a unitary republican state?

Can we have 'Kings' and by extension 'kingdoms' in a unitary republican state?

"Does that present a parallel authority that is inimical to the health of the 'union'? With respect to the interference of the European colonialists, is it not the case that such evolution, had it not being curtailed would have led to single strands of 'national' authority, as exercised by kings who would have gained this authority through conquest or treaty anyway? Granted that our present geo-political formations are unnatural, is that enough excuse to cling to institutions whose relevance often -and please note that the stress is on often- ends with the ego massage of those who wield the authority and influence they present and only remind us of our differences. Can the state and these kingdoms make separate and equal (?) calls on our allegiance? Can there be different sets of judicial authority co-existing comfortably in a single polity?" It is well known fact that no concept is absolute in reality. One of them is the concept of statehood as well as nationhood. The sad case of Africa with respect to European scramble for resources led to arbitrariness in the present day maps representing the so-called Unitary Republics where in reality for most of them the centre can no longer hold. Don't forget Kings used to exercise control and authority over the people before these foreign concepts were introduced.

To idealised it in your urbanised setting and thinking will be flawed in that these traditional authorities are still the first ports of call when there are issued to be resolved in the localities in the rural areas. They are of course in the majority too. Look around Ghana for example today,where you have over 44 different major dialects and ethnic groupings, it is highly unlikely that all would be expected to hold same level of allegiance.

Yes, we can have 'Kings' and 'kingdoms' as well as 'States' in a unitary or Federal republic. The imperative in all these discourses is the acceptance that the so-called 'Republican state' is in fact just a confluence of tributaries of ethnic kingdoms. It therefore beholds on all and sundry to constantly bear that in mind and conscientiously forge ahead as is often referred to 'unity in diversity'. That is to imply, respecting our differences and believing that our strength lies in harmonising our perceived diversity. As the late South African Reggae Superstar, Lucky Dube put it, 'different colours, one pebble'. "It is agreed that though the state is a confluence of ethnic tributaries, aligning into a unitary state demands the loss of sovereignty of those ethnic based kingdoms to a superior kingdom in medieval times or to a national political authority in our situation. Thus, the concepts of kingdoms and republics are necessarily in constant competition. Hence, the difficulty in having kingdoms in a single state for were the implied sovereignty to be fully asserted they would, for instance be able to declare wars and attempt conquests of other 'kingdoms' within the state. And where would that leave the different coloured pebbles?" This by no means to say that the existence of kingdoms is the sole, necessary and sufficient condition for national strife which in turn would be caused by imbalances in resource distribution. What this implies is, the power of a sovereign state extends to, among others, the declaration of war, formation of alliances and signing of treaties. In that vein, unless our local 'kingdoms' exist only in name, then they must reserve these rights, which would then be a danger to the state. We remember that until genocide of unimaginable portions took place in some parts of the world, many people thought that 'ethnic cleansing' was just a theory. Of course now we know about the fact that it assumed a grisly reality in its practice. My candid opinion on what is described as a constant competition between kingdoms and the republic is this; it is purely a matter of theory. In reality, the situation is totally different. In Ghana today, we all are aware of who controls and allocates resources. In that vein, declaration of war by a kingdom against the only arises when there is a case of unfair distribution of the national cake. Or in the worst case scenario, humiliation and/ or annihilation of any group(s) by the powers that be. And we must also be reminded that this situation in any case might arise anyway without the existence of the so-called 'kingdoms'. Examples from many countries abound especially considering the fact that the 'Republic of Somalia' composes a single ethnic group yet clans are warring leading to the undermining of the Republic for well over a decade. One may say that is an exception rather than the norm. I beg to differ. The underlying causes of the conflict and failure of the Republic of Somalia are similar for many nations the world. Hence the only caution is to exercise power and authority given must also aim to better the wellbeing of all the citizenry irrespective of creed, colour, race, ethnic background or put one's kingdom of origin.