Tolerance

The Cambridge University Dictionary defines tolerance as the "willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them". In other words, it means accepting that others can hold opinions, beliefs and positions different from yours without necessarily becoming your enemies whatsoever. Other authors however add flesh to this understanding, such as Catherine Pulsifer who notes that; "Tolerance is the ability to forgive those who tend to speak before thinking", and Robert Green Ingersoll who thinks; "Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself".

As the people of Southern Cameroons wherever they may be continue to ponder on what the future holds for them, it is important to inculcate the idea that the territory is made up of several ethnic groups and thus a lot of cultures and ways of reasoning. This means the people of the grass field will definitely think and behave differently from the people of the forest zone, same thing with those of the coastal areas. Some may be smart and quick to action, while others are slow and take a lot of time to get reasoning and then deciding whether to take action or not. At the same time, you will have people who are generally fearful of everything and like to keep things as they are, while there are courageous and brave people willing to take risks to ensure that things get to where they ought to or at least somewhere nearer to it. Of course, there are those who will want things to go all the way, whatever it takes. All these different ways of reasoning must be accommodated as all are useful and the only way to make these divergent views beneficial is through tolerance.

Differences in thoughts and ways of looking at things have left so many people involved in the Southern Cameroons resistance restless, angry, dispirited and overly discouraged. It has pushed a lot others to believe that the struggle is being confiscated by a few, while flames of discord such as the North West and South West divide occasionally rear their ugly heads mainly because people tend to be unwilling to recognize that diversity makes sense only where there is compromise. Hear Robert Alan Silverstein; "The human family is very diverse, with many different beliefs and cultures and ways of life. Many conflicts in our world are caused when people are intolerant of the ways that others see the world. Learning tolerance is an important cornerstone to creating a better world".

There is a current which has too often been anxious to say the people of the South West are less committed, that is when some do not outright tag them sellouts or pretenders, while at the same time those from the North West are accused of appropriating for themselves all the front line positions, possibly standing where they shall be able to tap every gain when the time comes, whereas the struggle should be fought equitably and all facets represented in an egalitarian manner at all levels. There shall never be any mathematical formula to solve such a problem apart from the introduction of the spirit of tolerance which is rooted in reason. That is why George Eliot says; "The responsibility of tolerance lies with those who have the wider vision", a pattern corroborated by Malcolm X when he says; "Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today".

The other day I listened to an audio in which the author raised hell that activists from the North West were diabolizing those from the South West and making them look like the devil while at the same time giving the impression those from the highlands were saints. He painted a picture of releases and articles which according to him would only sour the pudding. This means if anyone commits acts that stand on the way of progress, they should not be condemned because any moves to discredit the acts could be looked at through ethnic or tribal lenses- we are one and must without mincing words denounce wrongdoings in a constructive manner without fear or fervour, otherwise we would not have Innocent Chia taking it on Tassang Wilfred because they both are from up country. Reacting to criticisms through the ethnic prism shall only breed unnecessary suspicions to the glory of the enemy and lead to the weakening of the struggle. That is why Annabelle Higgins says; "By standing on top of your reactions you will be able to develop patience and tolerance; two distinct traits required for achieving long term success". This line of thought is also bought by Brian Cagneey who opines that; "In order to achieve great things, you must stretch your beliefs, your efforts and your tolerance. You will have to face new situations with an open mind, eager to reach your destiny". This is why I like and subscribe to Bill Maher's stance when he quips that; "Don't get so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance", we must remain focused and set the same standards for everyone regardless of where they come from.

Another sticky point in this struggle is the gulf that exists between federalists and those who stand for restoration of the statehood of the Southern Cameroons. Here dissention is almost seen as treachery and nowadays being a federalist is very easily a crime, just like being independentist and the battle line is quite visible. Federalists call restoration diehards war mongers, armchair generals, android sellers of illusions and much more, accusing them of treading a path can never be realistic and wishing to break family ties knotted over years between citizens of La République du Cameroun and those of Southern Cameroons through marriage bonds as if the mere fact of Cameroonians marrying Europeans or partners from other parts of the world means the nations must become bound together to keep the unions alive. In all this, Yaounde has yet to take a position and so again tolerance will warrant that we borrow a leaf from one-time US President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he says; "If civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships, the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace".

Wisdom requires that we take time to acknowledge the fact that if a profound gulf separates my neighbour's belief from mine, there is always the golden bridge of tolerance to bring us back to the table of reason. This struggle concerns the lives and wellbeing of some 7 million people and those involved have beliefs and aspirations they hold close their hearts. To forge ahead from our diverse backgrounds, we must therefore congregate in the light of John F. Kennedy's thought that; "Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others". Timothy Keller clarifies Kennedy's point further by adding that; "Tolerance isn't about not having beliefs. It's about how your beliefs lead you to treat who disagree with you".

Yaounde has disagreed with a lot of us how the State can be re-organized to accommodate everyone with their sets of beliefs and traditions as well as cultural backgrounds. In disagreement and disapproval, Yaounde has unleashed terror and not counter arguments, using the law to create fear, panic and confusion which finally turned into resistance and complicated the situation. Had the authorities listened to Albert Einstein's view that; "Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty, there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population", they would have favoured healthy debates and brought their entire armada to present convincing views to woo rather than terrorize people. Today, those involved in this struggle run the risk of emulating government if they continue imagining in their heads and minds that they alone hold the monopoly of know-how and that if an idea did not come from them it is bad.

Let us embrace the doctrine of the Dalai Lama that; "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them". We have to help each other in multifarious ways to realize the dream of the people of Southern Cameroons; if you can't do it by yourself, by all means assist those with the will and determination to do it for the benefit of all. Let us thus go home with this enunciation by Paulo Coelho; "Tolerance and compassion are qualities of fearless people". Let us endeavour to give our people the best without destroying each other and without breaking hearts and homes unnecessarily with unfounded and aimless accusations.

By John Mbah Akuroh

Source:http://cameroon-concord.com/boko-haram/8378-southern-cameroons-question-tolerance-holds-the-key-to-unity-success. 

Cameroon's Fighting Words Are in English

Cameroon's English-speaking community, about 20 percent of the population, is at odds with the majority of Cameroonians who speak French, the country's official language. The dispute is political: Yaounde, Cameroon's capital, shut off internet to the country's English-speaking regions for 93 days before restoring it April 20. Though the resumption of internet service could be viewed as a step forward, the Anglophone crisis, as the conflict has become known, underscores inherent divisions in Cameroon — ones that can't be resolved with the flick of a switch.

Cameroon's history is particular: It became a German colony in 1885 with the signing of the Berlin Treaty, which carved Africa into zones of influence for European powers. The territory on the Western coast facing the Gulf of Guinea and that stretched up into modern-day Chad and the Central African Republic became known as "Kamerun" and was initially subject to German influence. But in 1919, following Germany's defeat in World War I, the region was handed over to British and French authorities. The regions known as the Southern Cameroons and the Northern Cameroons were given to London; the rest went to Paris. The British, who controlled neighboring Nigeria, and the French, who already controlled the majority of what would eventually become Cameroon, were expanding their reach throughout Central Africa.

Changing Maps of  Cameroon

German influence — language, culture and legal norms — were erased in the new "Cameroons" under British mandate. (German architecture, however, is still evident.) The English language and British cultural and legal norms took root just as French culture spread throughout the much larger territory it controlled.

The Independence Fight

When a wave of independence movements hit sub-Saharan Africa in the 1950s and 1960s, the colonial projects and geostrategic aims of the British and French diverged greatly. Great Britain was relatively amenable to African independence movements, for example acceding to Ghana's independence in 1957. France, in contrast, considered continued control of its African colonial possessions as crucial to its status as a "great power."

Cameroon was vital to maintaining France's larger African empire for several reasons. First, French colonists in the territory owned the resource-rich land and had control of the production of numerous profitable resources including coffee, bananas, palm oil, aluminum and lumber. More critically, Cameroon's position — and namely the Port of Douala — had become vital to France's control and supply of the northern parts of France's Central African territory (including modern-day Chad and the Central African Republic), which since World War II had been strategically critical for protecting France's northern holdings.

France's ambition to hold onto Cameroon clashed violently with growing nationalist sentiment in the territory. In the 1950s and into the 1960s, France waged a brutal and mostly clandestine war against these independence-minded groups, most notably the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC). The fight was similar to the one waged more openly in Algeria. Great Britain, on the other hand, began to detach from its colonies in the hopes of fostering good relations with the burgeoning states. Yet even as France tried desperately to cling to its empire, events elsewhere — most notably the vote of Guinea-Conakry for full independence — effectively killed France's ambitions to keep control of its colonies, forcing it to eventually grant independence to many of its territorial holdings. However, as France lost its absolute authority, it crafted an alternate system of control that effectively tempered the independence of these countries. In the case of Cameroon, as elsewhere, France empowered malleable local elites to continue with favorable policies and to crack down on dissent in exchange for security and other forms of support.

Consequently, the Republic of Cameroon — which comprised France's Cameroon mandate — was born in 1960, led by Ahmadou Ahidjo, a Muslim and northern politician who in Paris' esteem was the "least worst option." Right away, the new republic was forced to focus on quelling nationalist forces that were still pushing to cut all ties with the colonialists. This gave birth to a robust internal security structure to clamp down on dissent.

A year later, Britain gave Northern Cameroons and Southern Cameroons the choice of joining either the newly independent Nigeria or Cameroon. No option for outright independence was given, a violation of the U.N. mandate statute and a choice that that many in the regions believed should have been offered. The desire for an independence option, however, clashed with Great Britain's postcolonial state-building policy, which stressed the need for Cameroon's British territories to join the independent Federation of Nigeria to strengthen it.

The results of the 1961 plebiscite did not conform to Great Britain's aims: While the Northern Cameroons voted to join Nigeria, the Southern Cameroons decided to join the new Republic of Cameroon. While surprising that an Anglophone territory would willingly join a much larger Francophone one, the result was due to two reasons. First, Ahidjo made attractive promises of regional autonomy within Cameroon. Second, residents feared that their region would be dominated by others if they were to join Nigeria. Indeed, this proved a massive issue for Nigeria for decades to come as ethnic groups and regions battled it out for domination of the state, sparking coups and countercoups. Thus, in 1961 the Republic of Cameroon transformed into the Federal Republic of Cameroon to denote the joining of Southern Cameroons and a devolution of power to the regions.

Unfulfilled Promises

Ahidjo's promises for greater autonomy for the regions within Cameroon went largely unfulfilled. In fact, with French support, Ahidjo became increasingly authoritarian, backed by an invasive security apparatus determined to eliminate political opposition. (In 1966, all parties other than the president's were banned.) In 1972, the president scrapped the Federal Republic of Cameroon, replacing it with a united state called the United Republic of Cameroon, causing a stir in Anglophone Cameroon that was eventually suppressed. Meanwhile, British engagement with its former mandate all but dried up, and Great Britain chose to instead focus its attention and resources on nurturing its relations with Nigeria and its other former possessions rather than continue to engage with an entity that had essentially chosen to join France's African sphere of influence. 

In 1982, Ahidjo stepped down as president for health reasons, empowering his vice president, Paul Biya, a Christian from the South, who remains in power. The power transfer quickly sparked tension as Biya sought to redirect power and patronage from Ahidjo's supporters in the north to his own, precipitating a 1984 coup attempt that failed. Though there was temporary hope that Biya would redress the grievances that stemmed from his predecessor's authoritarian era, the slow liberalization of the government in Yaounde — which included a period of "controlled multipartyism" — has changed little.

Yaounde's struggle to manage Cameroon's various divisions — and its emphasis on centralization and control — has inevitably caused resentment within its Anglophone regions, in which British culture is still dominant. Anglophone Cameroon has fought to maintain certain legal and educational practices and has pushed against Yaounde's centralization and "Frenchification."

In October 2016, Anglophone lawyers, tired of dealing with Francophone judges sent by Yaounde who rarely understood English or Common Law, went on strike. A month later, Anglophone teachers joined the strike, citing concerns of a "Frenchification of the Anglo-Saxon education system." From then on, a more general strike in the Anglophone regions broke out, and calls for secession increased. At this point, Yaounde went from being mostly indifferent to the strike to being openly hostile, fearful as it was of spreading secessionist sentiment. Soon, it arrested dozens of supposed Anglophone leaders and shut down the internet in the region to suppress communication and halt the organization of protests.

After more than three months offline, causing local economic losses of more than $3 million, internet was restored following international pressure on the Biya administration. Yet this was only a small step forward, and the conflict endures. Schools in Anglophone Cameroon have been shuttered for more than 7 months. For Yaounde to fully resolve the Anglophone crisis, it will need to negotiate in good faith with Anglophone leaders, release the ones who are in custody and consider their grievances.

There is the possibility that the Anglophone region lacks the power to be able to pressure the government into giving it sufficient concessions to appease it. However, the recent strikes and rioting did jolt the government into action, and it may be willing to cut a deal to end the unrest. Yet one key element of this will almost certainly be the increased autonomy that the populations of the Anglophone regions generally demand. This runs contrary to the political evolution of Cameroon, which has struggled to decentralize authority. In addition, Biya, who is 84, has increasingly spent an increasing amount of time abroad in the past year, likely as a result of health complications. It is possible that Yaounde could become even more inwardly focused in the months or years ahead should the conversation suddenly turn to presidential succession, leaving the Anglophone crisis on the back burner and inevitably inviting another round of strikes, unrest and secessionist demands.

The Anglophone crisis is the result of Cameroon's distinct colonial heritage and its struggle to manage its inherent diversity. However, overcoming these inherent challenges is paramount if Cameroon hopes to foster a more stable political system. In addition, the manner in which the crisis is settled may influence the many other potential African secessionist movements across the continent.

Source: https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/cameroons-fighting-words-are-english

Cameroun Bishops Taking Sides With The Oppressor- Consortium Leader

Bishop Samuel Kleda with President Paul Biya

Consortium Responds to the National Episcopal Conference of Cameroun

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good news to the meek. He has sent Me to bind up the broken hearted, to PROCLAIM LIBERTY TO THE CAPTIVES and the OPENING of the PRISON to those who are bound;” (Isaiah 61:1)

It is not in our culture and upbringing to bandy words with God’s servants for in the process we fear, we may in fact, grieve the Lord. But today we find ourselves obliged to do exactly what we know we should not; answer God’s servants in the public domain, for if we do not, the Church, or part thereof, may derail our struggle for the liberation of God’s people as directed by the scripture above, the very reason for which Jesus Christ came and died.

On Saturday the 29th of April, 2017, the Bishops of Cameroon gathered in Yaounde within the framework of the 42nd general assembly of the National Episcopal Conference and issued a message titled: “One People, One Nation”. That message focused entirely on the Southern Cameroons Question, the reason for the ongoing unrest in the North West and South West regions of the country.

In as much as we appreciate the interest the National Episcopal Conference has taken in this matter, we regret that in successive letters to the Christians, the leaders of the Catholic Church in Cameroun have demonstrated that either they do not understand the real issues at stake, or they have simply decided to pay a deaf ear and to take sides with the oppressor against the oppressed people of Southern Cameroons.

However, it is important for national and international opinion to note that the National Episcopal Conference of Cameroun did receive the Executive of the Cameroon Anglophone Civil Society Consortium and leaders of Teachers’ Unions in the persons of: Barrister Nkongho Felix Agbor Balla, Dr. Fontem A. Neba and Mr. Tassang Wilfred for the Consortium on the one hand and Mr. Tameh Valentine, Mr. Kimfon Michael, Mr. Afuh Stephen and Mr. Ayeah Emmanuel for the Teachers’ Unions on the other hand. During the occasion, the Joint Delegation gave the prelates all the education, facts and figures that they needed to know on the Anglophone Problem; from the historical frauds, Constitutional coup in 1972 to all manners of discrimination and oppression; these were in the legal, educational, linguistic and socio-cultural domains.

The Bishops of Cameroon are among some of the finest educated minds that this country can offer, with the sharpest analytical brains and therefore, as living witnesses to all these discriminations and having all the facts and figures at their disposal, being Apostles of the truth and of justice we expected the Church to stand out for justice and speak same without fear or favour.

Our God in His mercy will forgive us, if in the course of condemning the work of the enemy in the Church; we pass judgment on His servants. We only do this so that the people He has given us to lead to freedom land, the very nation He gave our forefathers may not be misled by His servants who have allowed the secular to overwhelm the spiritual. The issues raised in the message of the Bishops of Cameroon therefore require that we get to the roots of some of them in a systematic manner to enable greater understanding.

One People, One Nation

Our Bishops titled their message to the Christians: “One People, One Nation”. We consider this deliberate falsehood because we are convinced our prelates know better; that Southern Cameroons is geographically defined, has a separate colonial history from La République du Cameroun, that we have a Language of our own (English), that we have a legal system of our own (Common Law), that we have an educational system of our own, that we have different socio-politico-cultural practices, that we have internationally recognized boundaries different from those of La République du Cameroun, that we attained independence on different dates (1st January, 1960 for La République du Cameroun and 1st October, 1961 for Southern Cameroons) and much more, meaning we cannot be termed “One People, One Nation”, especially as an earlier intention by our forefathers to forge a union with those they passionately referred to as “Our Brothers” failed woefully with these so-called brothers turning out to be predators, annexationist-colonialists who have in fact treated us for 56 years worse than the Whiteman did. Truth is, where the Germans and the British used our languages and customs and laws to rule us before introducing theirs along the line, La République du Cameroun has attempted to completely annihilate us in all these aspects.

The Bishops of Cameroon, we all know, are all philosophers and either sociologists and or anthropologists, meaning therefore that they have a mastery of the situation on the ground. Further, the deliberate refusal of the National Episcopal Conference of Cameroon to endorse the letter written by the Bishops of the Bamenda Ecclesiastical Province (whose faithful have undergone and are still undergoing all the ills that we have mentioned) to the Head of State, President Paul Biya, outlining the problems and their manifestations, beginning from the genesis, tells of a huge disagreement on what the truth is among the Bishops of Cameroun.

The disagreement referred to above, reminds us of the events of the year 2010, leading to activities to mark the 50th anniversary of the independence of our two countries. The National Episcopal Conference unanimously decided to send out an Episcopal Letter to be read in all mission stations on a particular Sunday condemning corruption, tribalism and all negative isms in government, in the Church’s bid to mark 50 years of independence and reunification of the two Cameroons. Strangely, that Letter was read in all the Dioceses except in the churches of the Dioceses in the Centre, South and East regions; an indication that the Church in these areas is satisfied with Cameroun as it is. It is maybe needless to recall that street demonstrations and prayers against multiparty politics (liberty and democracy) in 1990 were led by prelates of, and from these same regions.

Tassang Wilfred
Programs Coordinator
Consortium

Source: http://bareta.press/cameroun-bishops-taking-sides-oppressor-consortium-leader/

Decentralization Is Not A Solution To The Anglophone Problem in Cameroon

Decentralization Is Not A Solution To The Anglophone Problem in Cameroon

I write this article against the backdrop of popular demand to clarify public opinion on the two concepts of Decentralization and Federation and how decentralization will not be the solution to the Anglophone problem in Cameroon.

I base my submission on what I see as the most comprehensive definition of the Anglophone problem articulated by the Bishops of the Ecclesiastical Province of Bamenda. The Key issues highlighted by their definition are:

The failure of successive governments of Cameroon, since 1961, to respect and implement the articles of the Constitution that uphold and safeguard what British Southern Cameroons brought along to the Union in 1961 (Legacy),

The flagrant and constant disregard for the Constitution, The cavalier management of the 1972 Referendum which took out the foundational element (Federalism) of the 1961 Constitution. The 1984 Law amending the Constitution, which gave the country the original East Cameroon name (The Republic of Cameroon) and thereby erased the identity of the West Cameroonians from the original union,The deliberate and systematic erosion of the West Cameroon cultural identity which the 1961 Constitution sought to preserve and protect by providing for a bi-cultural federation.

Decentralization is a political system which is the direct opposite of Centralized government. From 1972 to present, Cameroon has been a centralized state. This means power in concentrated at the center and all services are delivered from there. Over the years this system has failed to satisfactorily deliver services to Cameroon explaining the unrest of the early 1990s. In 1996, the government grudgingly gave to the mounting pressure and introduced a decentralized constitution. This was followed by the decentralization laws of 2004.

Decentralization Is Not A Solution To The Anglophone Problem in Cameroon. These measures have not been able to solve the problems Cameroonians are facing talk less of the specific problems faced by Anglophones in Cameroon. Bad governances has persisted, corruption has been unabated, chasing of files has become more complicated, unemployment has been increasing, moral values have decayed, tribalism and nepotism have been upheld, and you name the rest.

Decentralization which was introduced as a panacea to solve problems of centralization has therefore not produced the desired results. The reasons are not hard to find. Decentralization means the agenda is determined by the top and devolved or passed down to the decentralized units. By implication therefore, decentralization is top down. It is the top that decides how much power it wants to release to the lower levels. The decentralized units there just execute the policies and accountability is to the top. Decentralized units do not have constitutional safeguards and can be dismantled by the central authority. This system does not meet up with the demands of democracy where power is with the base and accountability is to the people and not the leaders.

Let us examine the typical case of Cameroon where several political parties run the councils. Leadership of the councils is elected by the population. As such accountability is normally supposed to be to the electorate. However, with the practice of decentralization, the leadership of the councils (Mayors) are forced to implement the agenda of the party in power which defines polices at the top. Parties of the opposition therefore have to implement policies that are defined by the party in power. The population is deprived of the power of citizen control. Some mayors find themselves in the difficult position of fulfilling the promises they made to their electorate since they have to be accountable to the top and not the bottom. This makes accountability difficult and betrays the argument that Cameroon is a democracy.

The central authority also uses the powers at the center to distribute resources. Decentralized units which belong to the opposition parties are openly discriminated in the allocation of these resources.

Federalism on the other hand is a political system where the central government and regional governments share power and decision making. The autonomy of regional units is constitutionally rooted in federalism. So, federalism is about the autonomy of the regions. Federalism allows regions a constitutionally legitimate basis on which they can disagree with the center or indeed with other regions. It is therefore not surprising that countries formed through a union of autonomous entities like Southern Cameroons and La Republique in 1961 would more likely want to maintain their autonomy within a federal structure. That is the case with Cameroon. Southern Cameroons came into the union as an autonomous entity and sort to protect such autonomy through a federation. If Southern Cameroons’ forefathers of reunification were not given guarantees that they were to retain the legacy they brought into the union, they would likely not have gone into the deal. That is why they see any move that does not protect this autonomy as a threat and a betrayal of confidence by the other party to the union. 

In federal systems, the central government cannot overrule the federated states because power belongs first to the regional states. It is the regions that give power to the Federal government to manage issues of national security and foreign relations. The Federated states have the authority to decide on their programs and run them, determine the leaders to rule them and are accountable to the electorate. Sovereignty is shared between the Federal structure and the Federal government at the central level.

With the Federal system, you will agree with me that the guarantees being asked for by the Anglophones would be guaranteed by the constitution. They will develop their programs, run their affairs, consolidate their legacy and participate fully in public debate. Accountability will be to the electorate and leadership will be legitimate. Constitutional change will be the subject of a referendum and not a decision of the central authority as we have today.

I therefore conclude on the note that Federalism and only Federalism will solve the problems of the Anglophones in Cameroon. Decentralization will be administering malaria treatment to a person suffering from diarrhoea.

Barrister Akere Muna