It is an honor for me to pen this critique of an article by my brother Mwalimu George Ngwane, writer and policy Advocate. Due to the proper length of his original article, “Addressing the armed conflict in Cameroon, constitutionally speaking” I have decided to share this critique with my readers, in four (04) parts. To attempt a single part critique of his wonderful piece, would be too long and doing a disservice to his excellent pen. Please refer to the original Article by the Mwalimu, to be able to enjoy and follow my critique. The sub-headings, are entirely mine. I have used them to better communicate my 4-part critique of a single article.
1. On the question of “Re-Unification”
The Mwalimu writes: “Historically, Anglophones are the English-speaking part of Cameroon that decided through a Plebiscite on 11 February 1961 and Reunification on 1st October 1961 to join their French-speaking part to make what is today Cameroon”
The use of “Reunification” is always interesting. To me, for this to have happened, the territory should have existed before, perhaps as a single functional unit in some coordinated manner or political form. However, we know that when the Douala Chiefs signed-away the vague territory in 1884, the Germans simply extracted natural resources, and whatever territorial form of administration existed, did so purely to facilitate that exploitation. Our names also emanate from various appellations of the Portuguese “Camarões”, to Kamerun, to The Cameroons and Cameroun, and there was little tangible political or administrative relationship before 1961, between Africans of The Cameroons (A region of Nigeria) and French Cameroun, which was colonized with other parts of French Central Africa. The sizes of the territories and the peoples have also changed over time.
So, there are better grounds for Cameroonians to speak of Unification, rather than of Re-Unification. Even more significantly, the Decision by Southern Cameroonians in 1961 to form a single Nation with French Cameroun, against many odds should therefore remain a very unique and significant one and the deserved gratitude must be shown to Anglophones of today.
2. On our Political Trajectory: from "Region" in Nigeria to a "Unitary Decentralized Entity" in the Republic of Cameroon.
The Mwalimu notes: “Anglophones have had different politico-geographical nomenclatures from "Southern Cameroons", "West Cameroon" to the "North West and South West regions". The country itself has mutated from "Federal Republic of Cameroon" (1961-1972), "United Republic of Cameroon" (1972-1984) to today’s "Republic of Cameroon”
This has been a very significant trajectory pregnant with meaning. The Cameroons was a region in the Territory of Nigeria for 44 years. If those of our parents or us who lived until 1961 carried Passports, they/we would have been Nigerian Citizens. This is again significant as it must help maintain our consciousness as Pan African bridges. West Cameroon, Northwest and Southwest are just appendages to Southern Cameroons.
Note that, Northern Cameroons existed exactly like Southern Cameroons and that territory is now a full part of Nigeria.
Federal Republic of Cameroon was a deliberate name with a constitution to accompany it.
Even more significant therefore, should be the meaning of this trajectory.
Note that, decolonization was the foundation of Southern Cameroons Political sentiments when they decided in 1944 as the Cameroon Youth League (CYL) in Lagos, Nigeria, to align with Nnamdi Azikiwe’s Independentist NCNC Party. For precisely the reasons of decolonization our founding fathers stayed with that Party until the Eastern Crisis and EML Endeley’s “Benevolent Neutrality” of 1953.
So, while Southern Cameroons has been consciously decolonizing since 1944, the period from Foumban 1961 to the 1996 Constitution; I dare say up to the December 2019 Laws on Regional and Local Councils, appears to have been a reverse process.
This author is not aware of an equivalent, legal, decolonization process characterized by an Independentist Political evolution East of the Mungo during the same period.
Instead we are familiar for instance with the activities by the UPC, and the overtly Independentist stances of Oum Nyobe and Ernest Ouandji. We are also aware of what fate met these African heroes. The UPC was still banned in Cameroun, and the One Kamerun (OK) Party did not subsequently reveal its true character, as its leader Ndeh Ntumaza vanished into political oblivion soon after. Teh OK left the UPC to whittle down today into a fragmented “opposition” and “presidential majority” entity.
So, it is difficult to find an equivalence between Southern Cameroons decolonization trajectory; 1944 - 1961 with that of our French Speaking part, given our different decolonization Histories.
3. The words “conflict” and “armed”, used together in the context of the Crisis.
The Mwalimu moves quickly to a possible consequence of this contradicting pathways to assert that: “The root causes of the “armed conflict” have had different interpretations as much as the solutions provided for their closure”
The Mwalimu’s statement here is fully understandable. However, the Cameroon Anglophone Crisis is now so central to our beings and existence that, to me, the notion of “Conflict” must necessarily be separated from that of “armed”. Let me explain.
There is, and must be a clear distinction.
Conflicts of Perception and of Thought are a central facet of the ‘Anglo-Saxon” intellectual pedagogy. We revel in Conflicts of Perceptions and of thought.
However, we see on the other hand, from the trajectory of Federalism, to Unification, to Centralization, to Unitary Decentralization, a deliberate constriction of Civic Space, of Freedom of thought and therefore, creation of a fertile ground for Conflict.
Unfortunately, our two inherited colonial systems do not treat Conflict of Perception in the same way.
Whereas "Conflict in the Anglo-Saxon Pedagogy is viewed as a frontier of creativity, of discourse and of discovery, the Jacobine perception of Conflict is negative - and disagreement or difference is frowned upon and can be heavily sanctioned!
I may be mistaken, but in my reading of the Southern Cameroons Political Story, I am yet to come across any significant mention of Political Prisoners, or Prisoners of Conscience. Yet, today the Central Prison in Kondengui, Yaoundé holds a significant number of Prisoners of Conscience and of thought.
The “armed” incidences since the outset of this Crisis have not been correlated with the Political arguments purported to be at their foundation. We can therefore conclude that the blue- and white-collar murders, killings, kidnapping and violence must clearly have different roots and motivations and must therefore not be treated in the same breadth as the Conflict of perception over our historical trajectories.
Our continued linkage of the need for deep Political reflection, evolution and improvements to our union in Cameroon, with violence, terrorism, and criminality, does a disservice to the memory of our founding fathers and excludes the majority of Cameroonians of quality from the essential discourse.
-----------------------------
Read the Sequels to the critique of Mwalimu George Ngwane’s article“ “Addressing the armed conflict in Cameroon, constitutionally speaking” : only here on Moneytreeslight. You may wish to support via MoMo +237 653 609 855
Author: Peter Ngembeni MBILE. Peter is a Cameroonian and holds a PhD in Forest Policy and Economics. He is a Sustainable Development Specialist, a Southern Cameroons History Enthusiast and a Political Commentator.
Subscribe to receive New Articles in your Inbox at https://www.moneytreeslight.com/ and register
Comments