On Wednesday, 2 August 2017, the International Crisis Group (ICG) published an excellent report on the “Anglophone crisis“, entitled “Cameroon: the anglophone crisis at a crossroads“. Only the title of this study is censurable, as it emerges after reading that it is Cameroon, and not “the anglophone crisis“, that is “at the crossroads“.
Indeed, the social unrest begun in October 2016 in the so-called “Anglophone” regions of the country has since taken the face of a determined separatist movement. Cameroon’s destiny is at stake today.
One way or another, certainly to varying degrees, we are all responsible for this disaster. The government of President Biya, who had all the cards in hand to ease the tensions, opted for the policy of the worst. In their majority, Francophone Cameroonians were indifferent to the distress of their compatriots. The local clergy, which could have helped to re-establish the threads of dialogue, lacked cohesion. The leaders of the Anglophone strikes have gradually fallen into the trap of the marginalization tended by the Cameroonian authorities.
“One people” or “peoples”?
Today, the feeling that dominates is that of a terrible deadlock. Henceforth deprived of all legitimacy and enclosed in a logic of confrontation, the Cameroonian government is impotent. The clergy, like many English-speaking elites, are discredited. And some of the leaders of the protest, as well as a significant fringe of English-speaking Cameroonians, inside and outside the country, are radicalized.
The impression of a stalemate is all the more acute given that the underlying reasons for the “anglophone crisis” have not been sufficiently analyzed. Consequently, if they were implemented, the solutions that are most often advanced (dialogue, gestures of appeasement, reorganization of the government, etc.) would perhaps bring calm and a semblance of serenity, but the evil would still remain.
In reality, the “anglophone crisis” is the most revealing evidence of the bankruptcy of the “Cameroon project“. This bankruptcy draws on the history of the country. Beyond the liberation of Cameroon, one of the political stakes of the independence war of the 1950s was the construction of a Cameroonian nation.
The authors of the book Kamerun : une guerre cachée aux origines de la Françafrique (Thomas Deltombe, Manuel Domergue et Jacob Tatsitsa) thus remind that during the creation of the UPC in 1948, one of the main debates concerned the name of this formation: “The founders refused to call the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon lest the plurality of peoples thus contradicted the idea of a Cameroonian nation. On the contrary, they rejected the name … of the Cameroonian People’s Union, which would imply an already unified nation. “
The defeat of the UPC did not prevent the at least theoretical accession of Cameroon to independence, but it put an end to the project of building a Cameroonian nation. The country has never recovered from that.
An artificial construction
Even today, beyond their identity card, their passport, a constitution with doubtful legitimacy or a flag that is at first the instrument of all propaganda, nothing unites way beyond their particular identities, “the peoples” of Cameroon. Beyond state propaganda and voluntary blindness, the country is more a legal edifice, an artificial construction, than a political and human project.
From this point of view, if it is necessary to recognize the specificity of the “Anglophone problem“, it must also be seen that it is a manifestation of the corruption of the “Cameroon project“. Consequently, if there is a lasting solution to this “Anglophone problem“, and more generally to Cameroonian evil, it begins with the recognition of this corruption. We must go to the root of the evil and redefine the “Cameroon project “: what is being Cameroonian? Is Cameroon the sum of its peculiarities, a synthesis of its particularisms or an overcoming of its particularisms?
In its recommendations to “get out of the crisis“, ICG’s report advocates a “firmer international response“. International pressure has already led to progress in this crisis (including the restoration of the Internet in the English-speaking zones). It could allow further improvements, especially since the implosion of the country would have disastrous consequences for Central Africa.
But the resolution of the fundamental problem is in the hands of Cameroonian citizens alone. Rather than waiting for hypothetical external interventions, isn’t it time for Cameroonian civil society to assume its responsibilities? Bridges must be created between citizen organizations in the “Francophone” and “Anglophone” regions. The debate on the nature of the “Cameroon project” must take place. It should involve historians, political scientists, moral authorities and all citizens of good will, who are gathered together to think of the terms of a Cameroon which would recognize only Cameroonians, would give every Cameroonian citizen a special place. Without an effort of this nature, the next ICG report may well see the death of Cameroon.
Analyzed by Yann Gwet for Le Monde
One way or another, certainly to varying degrees, we are all responsible for this disaster. The government of President Biya, who had all the cards in hand to ease the tensions, opted for the policy of the worst. In their majority, Francophone Cameroonians were indifferent to the distress of their compatriots. The local clergy, which could have helped to re-establish the threads of dialogue, lacked cohesion. The leaders of the Anglophone strikes have gradually fallen into the trap of the marginalization tended by the Cameroonian authorities.
“One people” or “peoples”?
Today, the feeling that dominates is that of a terrible deadlock. Henceforth deprived of all legitimacy and enclosed in a logic of confrontation, the Cameroonian government is impotent. The clergy, like many English-speaking elites, are discredited. And some of the leaders of the protest, as well as a significant fringe of English-speaking Cameroonians, inside and outside the country, are radicalized.
 |
| Cameroon – Analysis: “The Anglophone Crisis Proves The Construction Of A Cameroonian Nation Was A Failure” |
In reality, the “anglophone crisis” is the most revealing evidence of the bankruptcy of the “Cameroon project“. This bankruptcy draws on the history of the country. Beyond the liberation of Cameroon, one of the political stakes of the independence war of the 1950s was the construction of a Cameroonian nation.
The authors of the book Kamerun : une guerre cachée aux origines de la Françafrique (Thomas Deltombe, Manuel Domergue et Jacob Tatsitsa) thus remind that during the creation of the UPC in 1948, one of the main debates concerned the name of this formation: “The founders refused to call the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon lest the plurality of peoples thus contradicted the idea of a Cameroonian nation. On the contrary, they rejected the name … of the Cameroonian People’s Union, which would imply an already unified nation. “
The defeat of the UPC did not prevent the at least theoretical accession of Cameroon to independence, but it put an end to the project of building a Cameroonian nation. The country has never recovered from that.
An artificial construction
Even today, beyond their identity card, their passport, a constitution with doubtful legitimacy or a flag that is at first the instrument of all propaganda, nothing unites way beyond their particular identities, “the peoples” of Cameroon. Beyond state propaganda and voluntary blindness, the country is more a legal edifice, an artificial construction, than a political and human project.
From this point of view, if it is necessary to recognize the specificity of the “Anglophone problem“, it must also be seen that it is a manifestation of the corruption of the “Cameroon project“. Consequently, if there is a lasting solution to this “Anglophone problem“, and more generally to Cameroonian evil, it begins with the recognition of this corruption. We must go to the root of the evil and redefine the “Cameroon project “: what is being Cameroonian? Is Cameroon the sum of its peculiarities, a synthesis of its particularisms or an overcoming of its particularisms?
In its recommendations to “get out of the crisis“, ICG’s report advocates a “firmer international response“. International pressure has already led to progress in this crisis (including the restoration of the Internet in the English-speaking zones). It could allow further improvements, especially since the implosion of the country would have disastrous consequences for Central Africa.
But the resolution of the fundamental problem is in the hands of Cameroonian citizens alone. Rather than waiting for hypothetical external interventions, isn’t it time for Cameroonian civil society to assume its responsibilities? Bridges must be created between citizen organizations in the “Francophone” and “Anglophone” regions. The debate on the nature of the “Cameroon project” must take place. It should involve historians, political scientists, moral authorities and all citizens of good will, who are gathered together to think of the terms of a Cameroon which would recognize only Cameroonians, would give every Cameroonian citizen a special place. Without an effort of this nature, the next ICG report may well see the death of Cameroon.
Analyzed by Yann Gwet for Le Monde
