Last week’s law on the functioning of Elecam does not take the electoral process in Cameroon any step forward towards credible elections. Paul Biya deliberately sidelines appointed electoral officers and gives power as chief electoral officer but to the Director General of Elecam whom he can appoint from the ranks of the CPDM! We sincerely urge the opposition not to sit back and moan as always. By doing nothing they simply allow Biya to have his way as he likes. We suggest that they should send a small delegation abroad to mobilise international opinion against the regime. We are sure their action will not be in vain.
No one who heard or read the decree announced last week on the functioning of Cameroon’s new elections management body, Elections Cameroon, was surprised. What first appeared like going forward is in the end anything but that.
At best Paul Biya tried to do some repackaging of the same thing to give the impression of something new and different, capable of leading to the much sought after Holy Grail of free and fair elections. But the disguising was poor. The trumpery is easy to see.
At worst (and that is what is deeply regrettable)it is evident that the president truly meant to continue his regime-long abuse of Cameroonians by issuing a defective organ that can only perpetrate the history of flawed elections.
Operationally Elecam is conceived like a corporation which is as such managed by a general manager, its chief executive officer who applies policies adopted by a board. The board, as we know it, meets occasionally in a supervisory capacity to continue to advise the CEO to apply the company’s policies appropriately.
Cameroon’s public corporations are unlike private companies whose board members actually own the company and are concerned about the future of their investment. With Cameroon’s public companies board members are appointed by the government like the GM and do not have any real stake in the company. They very often lack the power to exercise any influence on the GM who can sometimes ignore them with impunity.
Elecam’s Electoral Board, as indeed it is called, is only supervisory in function. It has 12 members, headed by a chairman, who meet four times a year but can summon extraordinary meetings. The members are appointed by the president for four years renewable once.
In principle Elecam’s board members are appointed from propositions made by political parties in the national assembly. They are expected to be independent, politically neutral, and reputed for their personal integrity. They swear an oath before taking office.
Director General
Last week’s decree stipulates that it is the Director-general of Elecam who is the executive head of Elecam. In addition to his administrative and financial management of Elecam, the decree states that the DG “shall be responsible for all election operations and referendums” under the supervision of the electoral board.
Last week’s law does not require the DG who is also appointed by the president to be politically neutral nor is it necessary for him to rise to the same level of personal integrity as the board members. Also he does not take an oath.
MINATD is the supervisory ministry of Elecam. The decree stipulates that the DG will obligatorily render a report of all goings-on within Elecam such as minutes of all meetings and all decisions. MINATD also has the power to demand any information it requires from Elecam.
As can be seen the problem of free and fair elections still surfaces. The unusual function of the DG of Elecam is a major problem. Why should that post exist at all? Shouldn’t the president of Elecam be the full and complete authority of the electoral organ?
As Chief Executive Officer of Elecam the president should not only preside over electoral matters, he should also be the ultimate financial and administrative officer of the organisation.
That is what happens elsewhere. That arrangement guarantees unity of leadership and avoids conflict. But the present structure of Elecam is two headed which naturally builds conflict into it on that account.
Moreover the arrangement deliberately disempowers members of the electoral board who sit there helpless while the administrative and financial officer (DG) undertakes electoral duties. Doesn’t that defeat the whole idea of an electoral organ with appointed electoral officers?
Moreover, the DG is allowed in the new law to summon help in men and materials from administrative officers across the country in doing his work. What impartiality would you expect from prefects and sub-prefects who are loyal employees of the government?
Also MINATD is given certain powers to demand information from the DG of Elecam! How can Elecam in such a relationship avoid the interference of MINADT in the conduct of any election?
Apart from the key electoral role assigned the DG of Elecam, his personal standing raises other important interrogations. Why is the DG not required to be politically neutral? If he will be the chief electoral officer, playing all the key and delicate electoral roles why is he not also sworn in on oath?
Isn’t it clear that the omission is deliberate in order not to tie Paul Biya’s hands in appointing anyone of his convenience? Who can then stop the president from appointing one of his CPDM partisans as DG to facilitate the ruling party’s victories in future elections?
Credible elections
In the end there is no question that every concession that Paul Biya appears to make in the interest of credible elections he equally withdraws. With Elecam the victory of the government party in any electoral contest is guaranteed. Elecam has therefore not taken the electoral system forward in any significant way.
Last April Paul Biya rammed down the throats of Cameroonians a constitutional amendment that takes him over the retirement bar of 2011. A few months later here he is again with a defective electoral organ
It is believed that Paul Biya often gets his way mostly because opposition opinion is not mobilised against him. The extreme sensitiveness that the president displays from just a handful of anti-government demonstrators when he travels abroad has been suggested as an indicator of what could happen if international opinion were to be mobilised against him.
To escape anti-government demonstrators abroad Biya has often disguised himself, cancelled appointments, and changed itineraries. Last year the man felt so harassed he practically slipped out of New York incognito by the back door
Mobilising international opinion against the tyrannical policies of the government, it is believed, could achieve surprising results. We think the opposition in Cameroon has by simply not doing anything at all allowed Biya to have his way all the time.
Abroad foreign partners believe these matters are internal issues for the people themselves. At best they issue formal statements and leave the matter there.
We think the matter would take a different course if some opposition initiative would seek to mobilise international opinion against political developments in Cameroon. Simply to sit back and cry as we hear so often that the opposition is weak and disorganised is very much self-defeating indeed.
SDF, CDU, UPC, UFDC, AFP etc, rise up and charge forward. Send a small delegation abroad to knock doors and raise alarm. Get governments, international, multilateral organisations to take an interest in what’s going on in Cameroon. Speak to the likes of Sarkozy, Brown, Barosso, the Commonwealth, Condoleeza Rice etc, etc. That will serve notice that at last the people are up.
Your campaign will not be in vain. Let there be some action, be it only the exposition of the dictatorship in Yaounde. Your action abroad will also fire up the home crowds that are only waiting for your leadership.
But if you will only sit back and surrender to Biya without lifting a finge, be sure you yourselves will be swallowed up by the monster. Oh what a shame would that be!
Source; The Herald
Posts
=================
No comments:
Post a Comment