Ahidjo advanced many reasons for the establishment of a unitary system of government
By Elangwe Esino Evaristus, Yaounde
When on 11 February 1961, the former British Southern Cameroonians voted in a plebiscite in favour of the independent Republic of Cameroon against the Federal Republic of Nigeria, it was clear indication of their commitment to the idea of a Cameroon nation as it existed under German rule, astonishing the British authorities and the northern regional government in Kaduna.
A federal system of government was born after the two entities came together. Unfortunately, this federation lasted only 10 years 8 months. For, from the creation of the Cameroon federation, late President Ahmadou Ahidjo was never a federalist. He found all means and ways to dismantle the federal system.
In 1961, he carved out six inspectorates for the Cameroon Federation to be manned by inspectors who were direct representatives of the federal president. He went on to facilitate the formation of a unitary State by the merger of all political parties in 1966 to form the Cameroon National Union party (CNU).
On 9 May 1972, Ahidjo informed an emergency session of the Federal National Assembly of his plan to ask Cameroonians whether they approved or rejected the institution of a one and indivisible United Republic of Cameroon.
The intensive campaigns in both West and East Cameroon resulted in an overwhelming vote in support of the creation of a unitary State. The reasons put up by Ahidjo for the dismantling of the federal system of government were convincing and the unitary constitution had numerous effects.
The people of Cameroon had to maintain four Assemblies, namely the Federal Assembly, the East Cameroon Assembly, the West Cameroon Assembly and the West Cameroon house of chiefs. The maintaince of the posts of president, vice president and two State prime
ministers. To Ahidjo this drained billions of FCFA, which could be channeled to other developmental programmes, from the country’s coffers.
From the issue to consolidate national unity, to the inability of the state of West Cameroon to balance its budget, Ahidjo had the desire to assimilate the Anglophones whose Anglo-Saxon democratic tendencies were a nuisance to his desired centralised system of government. He was afraid that West Cameroon might follow the attempt of the Biafrans to secede since a number of West Cameroonians sympathized with the Biafran cowrse. It was also feared that West Cameroon would secede from the federation since huge oil reserves were discovered in the area, which pointed to the viability of the area to stand on its own.
The date therefore for the referendum was 20 May 1972. The electorate had to vote “Yes” or “No” to the question:
“Do you approve, with a view to consolidating national unity and accelerating the economic, social and cultural development of the nation, the draft constitution submitted to the people of Cameroon by the president of the Federal Republic of Cameroon and instituting a republic, one and indivisible to be styled the United Republic of Cameroon?”
The above question is clearly lopsided. The merits of the federal system of government were not proposed. Again, time was not given for Cameroonians to discuss the advantages and disadvantages. Many Cameroonians voted without knowing the political implications of
the change of system of government.
However, there is no turning back. The next National Day is just around the corner. Speeches will be made but the dichotomy of Anglophone and Francophone, South West and North West, first class and second class citizens, Christians and Moslems, Oroko, Bulu, Maka, Bakweri or Meta difference remains. The question of who is more Cameroonian follows us daily. Happy Nation
Day 2008!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
National Day: Tracking the road to 20 May re-unification
Labels:
20th May,
Ahidjo,
bad governance,
Corruption,
History,
unification
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
ARCH DADA,
This fact, which is above all political and which is definitely that of the unity and the recognition of oppressed, marginalized and probably least accessed people of the grassroots communities nationwide is a literal guise. Unity imposes itself on us in all its realities, realities of nepotism, corruption, uneven distribution of wealth just to name a few. A space where reward is not given to where it is due. However, UNITY is not abstract. Nor is it nebulous or altogether elusive. It's ultimate legitimacy solely belong to the choices we make. The choice of governance, human rights, free and active participation of citizens in decision-making processes of policies. One can always bring it to bear on the question of freedom. Are we free, in the original sense of the word? Our choices in the today, tomorrow and in future (like that of 20TH May 1972) to come can actually contribute to our 'being' free. LIFEBOY(ETETE)
Post a Comment