Recalling….
In Part I of my Critique of the Mwalimu George Ngwane’s proposition “Addressing the armed conflict in Cameroon, constitutionally speaking”, I focused on decrypting our understanding of “re-unification”. I posited, with some historical evidence that, we should speak instead of “Unification”, as the two “Cameroo[u]ns” never existed before as a single Political entity to be re-unified”. I also hopefully, convinced our reader that, Southern Cameroons was significantly “decolonized” by the time its Politicians alighted in Foumban and “united” with French Cameroun, where Parties like the UPC was still illegal. Finally, that Critique wrapped-up with my proposition that, we must view Conflict from another perspective – as a frontier of creativity and of transformation; and attempt to re-set our relationship that was so sorely missed in 1961.
I ended Part II of my Critique of the Mwalimu’s article, with two quotes from NN Mbile’s Cameroon Political Story, dealing with Constitutional Matters:
(i) “Now, returning to the Cameroonian character, what has held the Cameroon Nation together more than anything else is not the “grand” Constitution we wrote, not the angels of civil servants and politicians who run our affairs, but the spirit of tolerance in the character of the Cameroonian”.
(ii) “When all is said and done perhaps, we may say that the Cameroonian, due to his character, his often choice of fragmentation to escape confrontation, his capacity to bear patiently the burden of his mistakes; this specimen of the human species has [until 2016] in a region of turbulence, been able to survive intact, to lay a foundation for himself and for posterity”.
I christen this Part III of my Critique of the Mwalimu’s proposition “Addressing the armed conflict in Cameroon, constitutionally speaking”, “Roots of Extremism and DIMABOLA explained”.
In his article, the Mwalimu writes: “The fourth unilateral consultation was the Tripartite Talks held in Yaoundé from 30 October to 15 November 1991. Indeed, on October 11, 1991, President Paul Biya announced that a tripartite meeting between the government, opposition parties and members of the civil society would take place to discuss the draft electoral code as well as the draft decree on access of political parties to the official media".
The Mwalimu: "However, during its deliberations, the conference demanded that a new constitution be drafted for Cameroon. The conference then designated an eleven-person Technical Committee to draft a new constitution and then adjourned, expecting to be reconvened to receive, debate and adopt the draft constitution prepared by the Technical Committee".
The Mwalimu again: "Among the eleven-person Technical Committee were four Anglophone men; Dr Simon Munzu, Prof Carlson Anyangwe, Barrister Simon Ekontang Elad, and former Minister Benjamin Mutanga Itoe."
The Roots of Extremism in our Politics
For scholars of Southern Cameroons history, the characteristics of these four Anglophone men, are very significant.
Dr Simon Munzu, a heavy weight intellectual in his right, is also from Nguti sub-Division, home of Nzo Ekangaki - a key member of the "Cameroon Society".
Prof Carlson Anyangwe, another heavy-weight intellectual, was also an associate of Gorji Dinka – one of the first Southern Cameroons Politicians to moot the idea of “Ambazonia”.
Barrister Simon Ekontang Elad, of Mbo extraction, embodies those Cameroonians, who although partly extracted from the geographical east of Cameroon found favour and was active in Southern Cameroons politics.
Meanwhile, former Minister, Benjamin Mutanga Itoe, is an extraction of that part of Southern Cameroons (today’s Meme and Ndian Divisions) referred to then as Kumba North. One of the Constituencies that did not vote for unification with French Cameroon.
While the first three (03) men are arguable off-shoots of the “Cameroon Society” – a group of civil servants and political operatives, who provided advise to the Foncha’s KNDP Government of 1959 up to the 1961 Plebiscite (and even beyond); to the Ngom Jua Government of 1965, Benjamin Itoe is of the KNC/KPP extraction of Endeley and Mbile, who were in Opposition to Foncha's KNDP Government (1959 - 1965).
Opponents of the Foncha Government of 1959 – 1965 have variously described that period of Southern Cameroons history as a ‘Dark Period”. These opponents have even gone further to describe that Government as being extreme in the way it used its slim parliamentary majority (at times even at parity, 13:13 with the opposition) to push forward every policy in its favour.
I will posit here that, this type of Politics was the de facto beginning of extremism in the wider Cameroon polity, which today has contributed to significant political division between politicians from former Southern Cameroons.
"Might is Right " as ingredients of division and extremism
In his article, the Mwalimu writes: “However, three of the Anglophones in the Technical committee boycotted the deliberations of the consultative committee…”.
It is anyone’s guess which three boycotted (Munzu, Anyangwe & Elad). So why was the fourth, not a pat of the boycott?
It is very clear that, this was the beginning of significant cleavage between former Southern Cameroon politicians, now reminiscent in today’s Cameroon political life. I would argue that, the same extremism (Democracy by numbers – dictatorship of the majority), that led the Foncha Government of 1959 – 1965 to be described as “extreme” had visited upon the Southern Cameroonians during this Tripartite Conference.
So, although the Mwalimu puts weight in the Statement that: “The seven francophone members of the Technical Committee totally rejected all proposals by the Anglophone members that had to do with a return to Federation”,
I dare say that, the meaning implied in this statement is not 100% accurate as nothing is mentioned about the position of the fourth member - the Former Minister Bejamin Itoe, who is also Anglophone, and was a part of the Technical Committee.
In fact, the bitter after-taste of the extreme political actions of the 1959 – 1965 Foncha Government had remained on the taste boards of the KNC/KPP constituencies of Benjamin Itoe.
When Multiparty Party Politics exploded in Cameroon with the fiery launch of Ni John Fru Ndi’s Social Democratic Front, the SDF, Benjamin Itoe was one of those at the fore-front of a pro-Government match, unfairly caricatured as DIMABOLA; matching against what they saw as a return to the hustle, bustle and tribalistic realities of Multi-Party-ism, as they had witnessed and sometimes loathed, in Southern Cameroons. They had seen the Single National Party - the CNU (which had now been re-branded as the CPDM) as a more unifying and effective vehicle of accommodating minorities and fostering a common vision towards meaningful national development. But the country was to bend to diverse pressures and cede to Multi-party-ism, with the accompanying demonization of DIMABOLA.
For the Scholar of Southern Cameroons history and keen observer, the camps were already taking shape and the lines of extremism (however subtle) in Cameroon Politics, beginning to be drawn.
Some would erroneously gravitate to the orchestrated Northwest – Southwest divides in Southern Cameroons (and later post-1972 Cameroon) politics, later to be transferred to the present day.
But that would be inaccurate because, of those four Anglophones in the Technical Committee three (03) could be considered from the Southwest.
Selective democracy and growth of polarity amongst Southern Cameroons Politicians
The Mwalimu writes: …” After boycotting this consultative deliberation, the three Anglophone members (Munzu, Elad, Anyangwe – significantly, without Itoe) convened a unilateral consultation conference to prepare the Anglophone Cameroon position for any impending constitutional conference”.
The use of the word “Unilateral” is significant.
The Mwalimu goes on to say……” In effect therefore, the fifth unilateral consultation was convened by the three Anglophone members of the Technical Committee in Buea from April 2-3 1993 under the umbrella name of the All-Anglophone Conference I (AAC)”
Also, significant and somewhat presumptuous, is the expression “to prepare the Anglophone Cameroon position”.
We see here again, the clear signs of extremism in unilateralism - going it alone; and the presumptuousness that, just because it was three (Munzu, Elad and Anyangwe) against one (Itoe), the unilateralism was somehow justified.
Furthermore, these three men were to lead a process “to prepare the Anglophone position”.
So, just because the numbers were in their favour (3 to 1), West of the Mungo, “their position”, was to be “the Anglophones Position?”.
This presumption categorically ignored the minority position of Benjamin Itoe, and was very reminiscent of the extreme, unilateralist positions taken by the Foncha Government of 1959 – 1965, during the implementation of the Foumban Accords - the disastrous results, of which we are experiencing to this day. Many pundits argue that the Anglophone Crisis is a direct result of the shambles of Foumban; before, during and after - a process whereby the minority constituencies of Kumba North (of Benjamin Itoe) where marginalized.
The presumption of “Right by Superior Numbers” was also inconsistent with the Federal Constitution emerging from the so-called “All-Anglophone Conferences I and II", that sought to enshrine the “Rights of Minority Anglophones” in a wider Cameroonian polity.
We see here, double standards of how Southern Cameroons Politicians have been selectively "democratic"; ignoring minority positions when they are in a position of strength, yet clamour for "recognition of their right" when in a position of weakness. Such inconsistencies have been at the root of unresolved polarities and dichotomies - often adopted by the CPDM Government in Parliamentary debates (again, often on the basis of Might is Right). This is leading to the growth of unacceptable extremisms in various political positions.
Some issues to resolve going forward
Might is not always right. This presumptuousness characterized Southern Cameroons at very critical time periods, especially in the wake of engagements with French Cameroon.
This practice has been insensitively brought forward by some of our political actors treating communities as "captive groups", because they hold minority opinions.
We must understand and acknowledge that a minority can change the course of a nation for better or worse.
Instead of the three (Munzu, Elad and Anyangwe) simply moving on to organize AAC I and II on behalf of All Anglophones, on the presumption that they are the majority, could they have settled first for a common position?
Possibly postponing, rescheduling, re-defining the goals of AAC I & II and or deciding on another course of action?
Could humbler, less extreme stances have united Anglophones better and helped avert the Crisis, we find ourselves in today - especially hapless, in resolving or even playing a major part in resolving the crisis? Is it too late?
-------------------------------------
Read the sequels to the “The Anglophone Crisis Series: 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