CHAPTER ONE

Definitions

Before we go any further, let us define some of the important terms that will often be used in this conversation.
The Anglophone Problem
This refers to the purposeful, systemic and systematic Discrimination, Marginalization and Assimilation of the people and territory of the former British Southern Cameroons by a neo-colonial governance model inherited from France, and conceived to perpetuate French access and control over Cameroon’s natural resources and economy. However, Anglophones are not the only minority group to be treated unfairly in Cameroon. Other groups like the Pygmies and the Bororos also experience unfair treatment and may be considered also as having a ‘problem’. This leads us to the next definition.

The Cameroon Problem

The Cameroon Problem is the result of all the array of problems existing in Cameroon, including the Anglophone Problem. It can be attributed to personalization of power, governance without accountability, and a total absence of the democratic tenets of.............. CLICK on the link below for more details

http://thesuncameroon.cm/…/blueprint-federalism-publicatio…/

You say the federalists believe in the unity of Cameroon. Does that not put you at crossroads with those advocating and even fighting a war to split the country along linguistico/political lines?

As a matter of fact, it does. Let me make one thing clear. The CFM recognizes the existence of an “Anglophone Problem” in Cameroon, but we also understand there is a larger problem which we have termed “The Cameroon Problem”. We cannot solve the “Anglophone Problem” in isolation of this larger one which is mainly driven by hyper-centralization of power, lack of accountability, lack of checks and balances and corruption. We believe Federalism will address all these problems and there is no reason to break up the country to do that. So, while we are looking at the larger “Cameroon problem”, secessionist groups are seeing only the limited “Anglophone problem”.

Why is the unity of Cameroon so much treasured by the federalists?

The answer to that question is simple. Unity is strength. All over the world, successful communities derive their strengths from working together, not breaking apart. If we start breaking up the country every time there is a problem along geographic lines, where do we end? Let’s not start a precedent that will come back to haunt us. Secession is not the answer. Not today. Not tomorrow.

You have just released the blueprint of the federalist vision for Cameroon. What are the highlights of your blueprint?

Doctors say the best way to treat an illness is to first diagnose the disease. The blueprint serves a dual purpose. In the first part, we clearly define the problems. The second part then prescribes the solutions. As mentioned above, the main problems in Cameroon are a hyper-centralized model, an unchecked executive branch, corruption and mismanagement. The solutions are therefore decentralization, activating the Judiciary and Legislative branches to perform their constitutional roles of checks and balances, having elected Regional Governors, putting in place a proactive mechanism to fight corruption and having a truly Independent Electoral Commission and a rotating Federal Presidency, among others.

Your blueprint comes in a context of imminent legislative, regional and local council elections in Cameroon. Is the timing deliberate? What in your view could be the impact of this blueprint on upcoming elections?

It is my understanding the Head of State has requested the postponement of the Legislative and Council Elections. We actually see this move as a good sign. At the very least, it means he knows the environment is not right for elections. We need to have a broad-based dialogue first.
The government has opted for decentralisation according to the provisions of the 1996 constitution. But in your blueprint you call the government’s version of decentralisation “a smokescreen.” why do you say so?
We use the term “smokescreen” because, for all the talk about decentralization, the Government has never delivered. So, we think it is a scenario of “Promises made and Promises not kept”. If you look at what the Government is offering, you will understand our skepticism. They plan to place “unelected” Regional Governors above “elected” Regional Council Presidents. We think this is not only wrong, it is undemocratic. We, therefore plan to use all available democratic and legal means to express our opinions on this.

The federalist blueprint outlines a general framework for better governance in Cameroon. But also you seem to take particular interest in the treatment of minorities, especially the Anglophones. Do you think a solution to the problems Cameroon is facing today passes through a solution to the
Anglophone problem?
As mentioned above, we think Anglophones, like all minorities should be protected. This is the cornerstone of any democracy. What makes Anglophones a special minority group is our history. Anglophones were already protected by Article 47 of the Federal Constitution of 1961. Unfortunately, the terms of this article were violated by the late President Ahidjo. It is our intention to correct this grave historical mistake.

What is the relationship between the federalists and the Cameroon government? What is your level of interaction?
At this time we don’t have any relationship with the Government. We hope this will change soon. In the days ahead, we plan to meet with top Government officials to present our blueprint. We hope the Government will see us as a valuable partner when they realize our patriotism and sincerity.

Prime Minister Joseph Dion Ngute recently undertook a crusade for a return to peace in the troubled anglophone regions, announcing in the process the imminence of dialogue to discuss the anglophone crisis. What is your take on this as general coordinator of the federalists?

It is often said “the taste of the pudding is in the eating”. We don’t doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister, but we also know the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. If we go by what the Government has done in the past, there is not much weight we can place on their words. We understand it may take a little while for the Government to catch up with us and when they do, they will find in us a ready and willing partner.

What future do you see for the country?

We see a future full of hope. Cameroonians are smart people. There is no problem we cannot solve if we come together as one people, united in our diversity. We want to release the genius that is hidden in us. It has to begin with an honest and inclusive discussion of the problems that plague us. The bad news is that, for the most part, we are the source of our own problems. The good news is that, we are also the solution to these problems.
http://thesuncameroon.cm/…/federalist-blueprint-interview-…/

National model

A National model can be referred to as an inclusive national dialogue, a broad-based dialogue or simply a National Conference. This model seeks to debate issues on a national scale. It often occurs when a country is in the throes of a national crisis (power vacuum, military intervention, pre and post election agitations, national insurgence or civil war) and is in search of a national restructuring. Like in the African palaver theory where the village sits under a tree to agree or disagree until there is a consensus, the national model attempts to take into account all the frustrations and demands of citizens. The predominant issues on the table are, but not exclusive to, power-sharing reconfiguration, resource allocation, governance paradigm shift, electoral reforms and geo-political grievances.
This model may be in the form of a bottom-up formula, in which discussions and representations are held at the “lower indaba” (subdivisions or divisions), “medium indaba” (provinces, regions, kilils, states; and upper “indaba” (nation’s capital). This bottom-up three-tier formula gives the citizens a voice and visibility at all levels and helps to filter grassroots petitions into the national receptacle. It gives value to democratic entitlement as virtually every geopolitical locality feels their articulations are being taken into consideration and conveyed faithfully to government. On the other hand, a top-down formula would require an election of representatives from the medium indaba who carry the concerns of their people to the upper indaba. It is more or less like a nation’s lower or upper houses except that in this situation this is a new call for new voices with a new vision in a new dispensation. A top-down formula could also give room for selection by the central powers of representatives based on geo-political balance, state and non-state actors, partisan and non-partisan considerations and sometimes parochial interest. For the top-down formula to have a semblance of legitimacy, those selected would have to first hold consultations with the lower and medium indaba before any upper indaba Dialogue Assembly.

Constitutional model

This model is born out of the need to engineer or negotiate a constitution that would bring back aggrieved parties within the mainstream of the body-politic. Such a Dialogue Assembly is often linked to a governance or constitutional grievance whose solution can only be found in fashioning a win-win constitution. Indeed most governance grievances emanate from biased power-sharing structures (hypercentralisation, clientelism, personality cult, and the culture of patronage and prebendalism); unbalanced development (unfair resource allocation, non-compliance with the law of derivation, critical development deficiencies and poor national economic agendas);truncated historical and constitutional manipulations (periodic constitutional tinkering, skewed perception of nation building, flawed prisms of binary and multiple identities and civil war). A constitutional model only succeeds when the citizens and especially the state actors identify the source(s) of the governance grievance. Without pride or prejudice, power or pretence, falsehood or fanaticism, the political elite have an obligation to discuss all the details of rancor and requests that may have shaken the very foundation of the nation’s edifice. Hopefully the outcome would be to build not break, heal not hurt and save not sink a new or amended architecture that guarantees a positive peaceful coexistence. A constitutional model requires first and foremost the expertise of constitutional statespersons guided by the input of informed citizens and the religious implementation of policy makers. What this therefore suggests is that a constitutional model is one that goes straight ahead to convening a constitutional forum in the guise of a Dialogue Assembly.

Holistic model

This is a combination of the national and the constitutional models. It aims at seeking solutions to a national crisis in tandem with constitutional grievances in the hope that justice, good governance and peace shall be restored. This model reminds us of the Tripartite Talks of 1991 in Cameroon where the draft electoral code and the draft decree on the access of political parties to the official media were the main items on the agenda. However even though the government had emphasized that there would be no additions to the proposed conference agenda, four Anglophone participants attending the conference in different capacities pulled out after the rejection of their proposals relating to the constitutional concerns of the Anglophones. Yet the 18th January 1996 constitution was born from the 1991 holistic model. It is important that the focus of a holistic model be on a balance between the national and the constitutional so none eclipses or dilutes the other. To this end the choice of participants should reflect a fair mix of state actors, civil society, aggrieved parties and constitutional experts.

Whatever Model

Research reveals that six political context factors play a decisive role in whatever model is chosen. First, the political elites can for self or group interest stand on the way of governance reforms. Even when far-reaching agreements of a model are arrived at, the political elite may either reverse the gains of the agreements or refuse their implementations. Still to this end aggrieved parties without any linear coordination can torpedo the agreements because of internal wrangling. Second, frustration from the citizens may hinder the progress of the model if there are delays in implementation. Therefore a lack of buy-in by the public often results in the resurgence of the initial governance grievance. Third, the presence of regional or international mutually accepted and credible facilitators helps in whatever model is selected. Fourth, there is always a merit in what is known as homegrown or indigenous expertise. No country should ignore the role of neutral, impartial and inside-outside local facilitators who have firsthand knowledge of the dynamics of the grievances. Fifth, many countries have had repeated occurrences of governance grievances. Experience from these occurrences should serve as corrective measures that would avoid stalemates and deadlocks even though it is rightfully argued that deadlocks are mere signposts to restrategising. Lastly whatever model is chosen the aim is to stop talking past each other and start talking to each other. The aim is to hold hands and not guns.

Conclusion

Dialogue Assemblies are not new to the African. Indeed Africa’s palaver tradition is informed by the fact that it is only by sitting under the tree or an open market square can people talk sincerely, listen actively, confront creatively before reaching a consensus. Trees and market squares are today especially in urban settings metaphors for halls called in most of Southern Africa “indaba”, in Lesotho “kgotla” and in some East African countries “mbuza”. These are all indigenous expressions of modern community dialogue assemblies where debate about the state and future of society are determined. The outcome is to restore sanity in a fragmented or failed society by charting a way forward for justice, development, growth and positive peace.