Globalaffairs

Issue 8/April-May 2008
By Denis M. Mallo

Before evaluating the disquieting social and political climate in this country, let us remind ourselves of some basic facts. Cameroon, which is situated in the West Coast of the African continent, shares borders with Nigeria to the west, Chad and Central African Republic to the East, and the Republic of Congo and Gabon to the South. The country is comprised of well over 200 ethnic groups or tribes and, though English and French are the official languages, there are about 270 local languages spoken. The population is estimated to be about 18 million according to a 2006 census.

This oil-rich nation is also endowed with several other natural resources, including bauxite, iron ore, timber, and hydropower. Unlike most sub-Saharan African countries, Cameroon had enjoyed a relative stability within a regional context of widespread civil unrest. As a result of this comparative advantage, the country has increasingly become a dependable political and economic ally to most sub-Saharan African countries and powerful countries such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and Brazil. The Cameroonian government has been courted by these different economic powers to assist in the fight against terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, poverty, and various pandemics. In 2007, the French officials at the United Nations selected Cameroon as location for the future UN International Center for African Police in charge of peacekeeping missions on the continent. The United Stated recently invested $54 million to build a state of the art embassy that would support most of their future diplomatic work in the region. The United States has also shortlisted Cameroon as potential location for its future U.S. Africa Command, in charge of overseeing security cooperation, building partnership capability, providing defense support for non-military missions, and military operations on the African continent. These allies have used various incentives to woo the Cameroonian government, including admission to the Bristish Commonwealth or the support of Cameroon’s application to international financial organizations for debt forgiveness amid a continuously poor human rights record, fiscal indiscipline, and decades of overt public corruption.

The ill-fated events of February 25-29, 2008, which claimed the lives of several young men and women, in addition to massive destruction of public and private infrastructures countrywide, should remind us all as members of the international community to look closely at the ongoing political and social situation in Cameroon. The country’s apparent tranquility quickly vanished as a smoke screen and the political and economic life instantly waddled when discontent cabdrivers, business owners, and their syndicate representatives called for a civil protest in response to an unwarranted government’s order enacting an additional increase to gasoline prices. This seemingly benign social disagreement worsened rapidly and turned into political threats driven by an arguable general feeling of resentment against the government. Numerous eyewitnesses report that the general public had quietly been dissatisfied with the attitude of the government, which had been unhurried in reallocating the benefits of debt forgiveness to the ordinary citizens that largely sacrificed in order to achieve the prerequisite economic results prescribed by the international financial organizations and other private creditors. While economic indicators showed a recovery, the majority of Cameroonians still experience unemployment, unequal distribution of wealth, and economic injustice.

According to local Human Rights groups, the civil protest resulted on a loss of over 70 innocent lives and destruction of countless public and private properties throughout the country. As the death toll rose and the situation clearly became a political and economic liability, this show of aggression was sensibly defused by government officials, including the President himself, who decided to revamp the new order and lower gasoline prices. A few days later, the President continued the damage control campaign and signed another order providing for a 15 percent salary re-adjustment to public servants and police forces that had seen their wages progressively reduced by up to 75 percent over a long decade of stringent structural adjustments. Though the government may have handled the situation skillfully and immediately empathized with the population by addressing their need a week following the end of protests, there remains a doubtful sensation sweeping through the population. On the one hand, opposition leaders have noted that those readjustment measures are not enough to improve the standard of living of the population, for public servants and police forces represent less than 30% of the overall labor force. On the other hand, public opinion has reported that the President’s new expression of empathy for the Cameroonian people, who he has rather accustomed to condescension, is backed by an ill-conceived intention to amend the Constitution and allow himself to remain in office for another term. Noting all of these, it appeared urgent to reflect critically on whether the Constitution should be amended or the President be eligible for another term.

Should the constitution be amended? Should the president be eligible for another term?

According to the government, the ruling Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM), and the President, the answer clearly is a positive. The President has lent his strongest support for the amendment of the Constitution. He has backed his decision mainly with his supporters’ continuous public display of consensus for the amendment beginning in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential elections. Yet, he has also suggested that his support for an amendment is embedded on his personal commitment to democratic ideals. President Paul Biya has argued that the 1996 Constitution, as is and namely its article 6 al.2, alienated people’s individual right to elect the candidate they would want. The government, members of his political party, and he have thus repeatedly hammered this fundamental democratic principle as the sole driving force of their intention to amend the Constitution a third time in his 26-year presidency. Moreover, they have consistently rejected the widespread rumors that their actions are intended for their leader’s potential lifetime presidency. Evading the question related to a presumed lifetime presidency, the incumbent himself has pressed that he looked forward to leaving a legacy of the Cameroonian President who set off democracy and championed democratic ideals. Nevertheless, several questions remain unanswered in consideration to the fact that the ruling CPDM was the majority party in the Parliament when the Constitution was amended in 1996. Why did the members of this party, which almost singled-handedly charted the current Constitution, initially include such an article if it were in violation of basic democratic ideals? Furthermore, the current Constitution has mandated the creation of a bicameral parliament that would include the Senate and the National Assembly, in addition to semi-autonomous regions that would replace the provinces. Why have the government, members of the ruling political party and President not shown the same commitment to democracy in assuring that the other components of the Constitution are implemented in over 10 years? Finally, an objective evaluation of Constitutions from other countries shows that some of the most advanced democracies in the world have enacted laws to limit eligibility to executive offices, including the President’s.

With all the evidence, it is safe to argue that these overt expressions of sympathy or unexpected passionate claims for democracy have plainly been in contradiction with the government regular actions. And a long held public office has the advantage of providing people with innumerable measures through which they can scrutinize an incumbent. Leaders of opposition parties, civil society, and the people at large have vehemently questioned the timing of the sudden change of heart. According to various internet sites, publications, and ongoing public petitions, the majority of Cameroonians rejects the idea of another amendment. They have not strongly explained the reasons for their rebuttal; however there is a perceptive aspiration to end the lasting presidency of Mr. Paul Biya. In addition to his longevity in office, a few of the dissenters would mention his arguable incompetence to keep the economic forces in check, or the social as well as political order of the country as grounds for their grievances. Objectively, political analysts have found several shortcomings to his so-called seminarist approach of leadership by proxy doubled with philosophical and abstract rhetorics.

These observers also agree that his leadership has bred many of the ongoing problems; ethno-cultural divisions, tribalism, nepotism, egoism, personality cult, embezzlement, fiscal irresponsibility, and the like. Fellow Cameroonians have portrayed his said diplomacy of distance and discretion as ineffective to tackle important issues in a competitive global economy. During his last official trip to France, President Biya taped an interview with a French TV network, the global all-news channel French 24. Among the questions, he was bluntly asked why he does not grant interviews whether to national or international media. In fact, despite the important role of France in African politics, in over 20 years he had only granted one to the French media. He acknowledged this fact, explained awkwardly that he was old-schooled, and thus rather preferred the more elitist and condescending communication method of giving speeches. He further bragged he had delivered several speeches over the referenced 20-year period. However, people have since rightly responded that in a 21st century information age, it is noticeably an inconvenience to have an elected official who does not grant interviews (whatever the reason). It would be accommodating for the President’s positions to be openly probed and challenged as he communicates his views to the public. The media has to be able to play its part in a democratic system. As a result, those who have consistently complained about his leadership and called for the end his presidency somehow seem to have a valid case. Regardless, the next question Cameroonians may want to ask themselves is, should this term be the last one for this president, what would be the alternative solutions or choices?

Searching through various national and international publications, I realized once again that the opposition parties and civil society have no viable alternatives or candidates. Just like the current president, most opposition leaders have been heads of their corresponding parties for as long as their formations have existed. They have used the same tactics within their parties as Mr. Paul Biya, in other words, they have led with a strong hand; they have divided their parties to remain in charge, and have failed to clearly present the ideology of their parties to the people. During elections, they often rely on buying votes like the ruling party as opposed to appealing to the general public with effective programs. Some of the major opposition parties won city elections and failed to impact any real change in the lives of the citizens. So, though most people seem to be eagerly awaiting the departure of the current president in 2011, there are concerns among the brightest citizens who understand that even the departure of the president may not translate into ecstatic future for the country. As a matter of fact, Cameroonians may be faced with even greater problems. For at least the current president has the advantage of having been around for a longtime and knowing the high expectations of the job. Still many do not want to think about the alternative choices. They would not even reflect on the fact that the current president was (officially) never defeated in any elections in which he participated in part for the simple reason that the opposition parties had never been able to agree on a single candidate or effectively appeal to the masses through their organization and message.

For the ruling party, it seems difficult to envision a future without their current leader. In fact, though the current Constitution keeps their leader from running for another term in office, they still remain hopeful. They’re very optimistic about the amendment of the Constitution. They have not openly made the argument that he would be their candidate, but several have called on him to consider running for another term once the Constitution is amended. Many of the underprivileged Cameroonians obviously feel that these calls for reelection are more motivated by egoism and personal gains than anything else. They also do not see any real difference between, the current president and the opposition leaders. A number of Cameroonians hold the view that, Mr. Paul Biya equates Mr. Fru Ndi, who equates Dr. Adamou Ndam Njoya, who himself equates any of the other potential candidates. However, others further point to the referenced fact that there is no genuine leader in the opposition capable of taking over. Looking at the political scene realistically, any future candidate from the current ruling party would have greater chances of getting elected President. They have a better organization in an imperfect political system; they have the advantage of being in power and having a majority in the Parliament. They have control over all sectors of the economic and political life of a country in recession. I am assuming the proper question is whether it would be in the country’s interest or their party’s to have the current president run for another term. What impact would the overall situation have on the international community?

Why should the international community care about the situation in this African Country?

Some political scientists once concluded, countries do not have friends, they only have interests. With that in mind, the situation in Cameroon should be of interest to many of its partners. There are rising suspicions that the political warfare that had crippled Liberia, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Togo, Chad, Zimbabwe, and recently Kenya may soon be transferring to Cameroon as well. Officially, the ruling party overwhelmingly won the last legislatives in 2007 with 153 seats out of 180 available, but most people disagreed with those results, feeling that the elections were rigged as usual. In the aftermath of the elections, opposition parties and civil society leaders accused the government of irregularities, including distribution of multiple voter registration cards to single individuals and used of gerrymandering techniques, aimed at assuring a big win to the ruling party (at least 120 seats or the 2/3 majority required to pass any new bill). The population had anticipated the ruling party’s intention to amend the Constitution. Therefore, the overall situation has rather been disturbing since the recent civil unrest that reportedly resulted in the arrest of about 1600 people.

The government is standing firm on its intention to use its supremacy in the Parliament to amend the Constitution. Most of the country’s allies have spoken out against manipulating the Constitution to retain power and called on the government to be cautious of what could become another sub-Saharan African tragedy. It is understood that as a sovereign country, Cameroon could not be dictated a way out of the potential crisis but the international community would evidently need to put more pressure on the government to deter a foreseeable disaster. There is an interest in acting swiftly, not only because another civil war would mean more deaths, destruction, and needed foreign assistance, but also because it would impact the social and economic lives in other countries. Due to an unfriendly and lasting political stimulus, Cameroon was already among the top native countries which produced the most asylum seekers in Europe and United States. A civil war would accentuate this reality and EU countries and the United States already struggling with several domestic issues would have yet to address the problem of these additional displaced people as well. To end, I would like to paraphrase one great American President and remind ourselves that, we must discourage wars. We must persuade our neighbors to compromise whenever possible. We have to point to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser-in death toll, destruction, and waste of time. As members of the international community, we have a superior opportunity of being great individuals. And we’ll reap unforeseeable benefits.

Denis M. Mallo
PhD in International Political Economy

References
The Presidency of the Republic of Cameroon, www.prc.cm
US Department of State, www.state.gov
National Democratic Institute, www.ndi.org
The Cameroon Portal, www.cameroon-info.net
Le Premier Reseau de la Zone Cemac, www.icicemac.com
Cameroon, The World Factbook, www.cia.gov
African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania, www.africa.upenn.edu
The Cameroon Students Association in the USA, www.camsa-usa.org
The Commonwealth, www.thecommonwealth.org
Dr. Christopher Fomunyoh, “En tant que Camerounais, je suis preoccupe par l’avenir de mon pays” TFF, The Fomunyoh Foundation, www.tffcam.org
Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon, Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Cameroon 3rd Edition
Dr. Celestin Monga, “Overcoming the Curse: Keynote Address at the 22nd Annual Convention of the Cameroon Students Association in the USA” Aug. 2007
Dicklitch Susan, “Failed Democratic Transition in Cameroon: A Human Rights Explanation” Human Rights Quarterly – volume 24, Feb 2002
Pour le Liberalisme Communautaire, (The Communal Liberalism) Paul Biya 1987
L’Afrique Noire est Mal Partie, (False Start in Africa) Rene Dumont, 1966

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion