By Ngembeni Wa Namaso
Many would ask, “Why is the Junior NGOMBE affair, making so many waves”, after all, this is no different from other snatchings, silencings and disappearances across the African continent?
The abduction of Junior NGOMBE must mean different things to different people, or perhaps nothing, to some – that would be sad. To me from the Oroko (Batanga-Balondo) community, South west region of Cameroon on the borders with the territory of Nigeria, “NGOMBE” means Iguana (Iguana iguana).
The “NGOMBE” are also a community in the Equateur province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It is an easily recognizable name amongst the “Bantu” peoples and as such the affair for me hit a pan Africanist cord and inspires similar thoughts.
A TikToker touched such a cord in me this morning, and got me thinking about Berlin 1884 and partition of the African (Alkebulan) continent. That partition (like a cake) was purely for exploitative purposes to benefit some European nations). Europe has since metamorphosed from original nations (homogenous peoples) into nation - states, and still doing so. Yugoslavia (a country) broke up into more homogenous nation-states; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later known as Serbia and Montenegro. If you are confused between nation and country:
“A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, ethnicity etc. A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people”.
Africa today, is made up of countries, and the Berlin Conference of Europeans created “territories” (that later became countries), out of previously existing nations, to facilitate their exploitation and colonization project.
So, when I listened to the TikToker from the country of South Africa, she spoke of why pan Africanisms continues to be problematic; because African countries and peoples still struggle to accommodate these two powerful realities; nation and country; the former – authentic, and the latter largely a creation of Berlin 1884 – by Europeans for exploitation and plunder.
I cannot conjecture if this confusion was deliberately conceived by our European colonizers, to set-us up for our demise today. However, to the extent that the reconstruction from nations to territories (colonies), then to countries, served the colonial project and post-colonial reality, it is easy to see how and why we continue to experience serious problems with governance.
Until very recently with phenomena like the AES (Alliance of Sahel States), we have rarely truly questioned the transition from nations – pre-Berlin 1884, through colonies – 1884 – 1960 (for many), to present day countries.
Many posit that, this transition may have important connections to pan Africanism, the lack of it, and to phenomena like the Junior NGOMBE affair.
Our South African TikToker again; drew-on the cases of Afro-xenophobia in south Africa, the war over Congolese Tutsis in eastern Congo, the Massai lands across Tanzania and Kenya, the Fang-Betti across Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Congo, Gabon, and their relationships with other nations in Cameroon, the Bateka – across Nigeria-Cameroon, the Fulani across the Sahel, Wollofs in West Africa etc. That, Africa is full of nations split-up, balkanized and forced into countries; wherein they are either subjected to alien idiosyncrasies (= a mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to individuals, communities or nations); or where they subject others to their idiosyncrasies - all rooted in the Berlin 1884 Catastrophe. According to the TikToker such countries will struggle to understand pan Africanism, or their perceptions of it (DRC vs Rwanda; S Africa vs the rest of Africa; Cameroon forest vs Grass field nations…) will be perpetually skewed.
A commentator to the TikToker also argued that, people drawn from the same nation (but living as citizens of different countries) can even show greater affinity with each other, than they do with “fellow citizens” with who they may share an Anthem and carry the same flag. According to the TikToker, true pan Africanism and unity within countries, and amongst the Nations should be built through understanding that our different nations have different idiosyncrasies; and these differences must be accommodated as best as possible, into each country’s laws.
The ensuing discourse and debate focused my mind on the Junior NGOMBE affair and his abduction for vocalizing his thoughts into critiques of societal ills, government actions and/or inactions.
Is it possible that, Junior NGOMBE is not a criminal, but simply tolerates a different level of critique? There are some people who do not handle criticisms well, privately or publicly. That's OK – the problem however, is if they are allowed to project that weakness into public policy in a pluralistic society. What should be the common standard or threshold for tolerance? Is Junior NGOMBE’s threshold higher than that for others, from other nations from within the country of Cameroon? Those who arrested him or think he should lose his freedom?
From the public outcries; pros and cons, it is clear the public is divided on whether he should be in jail or not; abducted or not, cautioned or not; is his right inalienable? This is an important conflict (difference in opinion) as it goes to the heart of the project of building a country out, of a collection of nations - each with their authentic idiosyncrasies.
Granted that, the 1960 countries quickly built constitutions and laws and many other regulations, as circumstances demanded; to replace some directives (often draconian) emanating from Berlin 1884 territories. But, is 60 years sufficient to harmonize national idiosyncrasies; behaviors, levels of tolerance; our conceptions of right or wrong, immorality, what is morally acceptable, etc.? Should we perhaps also worry about cause and effect? What’s worse; the criticism or what has been done to provoke the criticism?
It is said that the draconian effect on Germany of the terms of the Versailles Treaty of June 1919, set the stage for World War II. Is it possible that, laws have been passed in times of crisis which should not have passed the test of “living together” by different nations in African countries? Take the Cameroon law on “Insurrection” of 2016 and its applications; are its effect not comparable (some would argue) to the how the Germans felt towards the terms of the Versailles Treaty? Many intellectuals have argued that, decisions should not be made in anger. That, a great weakness of the Versailles treaty was its setting, amongst the ruins of WW I, blamed on Germany. The Law on “Insurrection” and others, like “Hate Speech” were enacted either in the middle of crisis or in their wake.
In a dynamic context of building a nation-state, how do we harmonize our idiosyncrasies; cultural characters, our levels of tolerance for public critic; for reverence of traditional authorities, for alcohol, for dance, for sex, for travail, stinginess, spendthrift-ness – or at least tolerate and accommodate those of others?
Which should we criminalize and which tolerate? Which should we put into law? Under what circumstances? Is it harder on those nations who by nature are outspoken, while it may be Ok to those who are not? Is a utopia feasible?
These are all questions needing answers towards building countries from nations through making sense of the Berlin 1884 catastrophe. We may not be in a hurry, as fuller understanding of this is required if Africans must live in harmony as we must. In that new bold Africa, Junior NGOMBE’s call for civic participation, mobilization of the Youth would be seen, not as a crime per se, but more as an expression of a harmless, unique African characteristic, authentic to his nation and a part of the beautiful diversity of the country of Cameroon. Let us allow rule-of-law (see my Part I of this series on Junior NGOMBE) to run its course. Let us allow Junior NGOMBE be a free, citizen.
Lets engage him in lively debate.
Comentarios