Cameroon: Moving forward to 2011!

With all the distractions around us, like selective arrest of embezzlers of State funds, noises about impending big projects, pompous declarations about the food crisis and more, we should not lose sight of the momentous 2011 that is approaching at a gallop

By Tazoacha Asonganyi,Yaounde

It is of historical interest that once in a while, extraordinary human beings that stand out head and shoulders above all others appear on the scene. We all had this in mind when we embarked on the politics of change with the return of multi-party politics in the early ‘90s. This was especially so because experience from South East Asia had taught us that one commanding personality could change a country in a generation…Such a personality gets thrust up by forces under the surface and they alter the direction of the forces in their poor, underdeveloped countries and make their life a legend, like Mao, Park Chung Hee and others...

It is true that the opposition figures that emerged on the stage in the early ‘90s were products of different backgrounds: some were realists, others were idealists, but they seemed to be all aware of the weak foundation on which the country stood. They also seemed to be aware of the forces under the surface that had brought the country to its knees. All of them had one thing in common: each behaved like a star. It was not long before we became aware of the dangers that had been cast on the struggle by these “shining” stars. Since great stars are only happy in their own
unimpeded orbits, it was difficult to put them in one orbit! Each time they were “forced” together, it was more a partnership of circumstances and convenience, than of friendship and cooperation. And so under our eyes, the mission of the struggle whittled down and was departed from. In their dazzling, competitive orbits, they developed “strategies” that were more shell than kernel... As years went by, each developed the myopia of old men that it is difficult to imagine a satisfactory younger successor!

So what was the challenge the emergent leaders were bound to meet? Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai has responded with a question: “...why is Africa one of the richest continents on the planet, endowed with oil, precious stones, forests, water, wildlife, soil, land, agricultural products, and millions of women and men, and yet most of Africa’s people remain impoverished?” The simple reason is the lack of serious leaders with vision like Mao Tse-tung (for China) and Park Chung Hee (for South Korea) that truly emanate from within the society to create the appropriate environment for their countries to emerge from poverty, underdevelopment and helplessness.

Africa’s false step was taken by the leaders that took over African countries following independence, because of their “limited and conditioned vision”. Although they were colonised and abused, they identified with the colonial forces that denied them what they dreamt to become.

Since the coloniser had inspired “admiration”, being like the coloniser would also inspire “admiration”! Consequently, the opportunity to rule was confuse with oppression; they imitated the use of power and authority by colonisers and ruled their people in the manner of the colonialist they had just replaced.

Unfortunately, those who succeeded to replace these “strongmen” or “fathers of the nation”, continued in the imitation. Therefore the mission that faced the “new” opposition parties that emerged in the early ‘90s was to end this sterile imitation by providing appropriate leadership to lead our country out of the stalemate of underdevelopment and poverty. As would be realised later, the leaders did not seem to have a single grain of conviction, except in the hope that by some luck, they could grab the country and commandeer it in the image of those they were fighting to replace. Their political attitudes seemed to be dictated by opportunism, rather than by any coherent corpus of belief. “Democracy” was always their pet slogan, and they invariably included it in the names of their parties, although they had very little idea of what it meant. It was like a password for self-preservation and self-promotion…

Most of the “leaders” spent precious time uprooting plants from the gardens of ideological certainties and replanting them in the gardens of the outfits they had set up as political parties; giving them funny names like rigour and moralisation, new deal, grands ambitions, power to the people, equal opportunity, republican ethics... and even creating “shadows” that fell into desuetude upon their creation... As expected, the gardens became more and more barren with passing years… and the hungry and expectant people became more and more restive!

After Ahidjo’s 22 years at the helm, it seems the only ambition of the present man at the top in our country is to be remembered for having blown out the highest number of candles in the presidential palace. As we move forward to 2011, the various “stars” circling their individual orbits leave us only to hope that the year will mark our own “once in a while” when, from relative obscurity, an extraordinary human being with vision and patriotism will emerge on the scene.

After last month’s upheavals: Picking up the pieces

What is evident is that since the February upheavals, politics (in Cameroon) has entered one of those febrile, nervous phases in which events seem to be moving towards some momentous but unknown climax, almost independent of the wishes of the actors!

By Tazoacha Asonganyi, Yaounde

All that is happening in Cameroon today is a result of the obstinate refusal of the regime to fully embrace political pluralism. It has refused to come to terms with the fact that the people are inherently plural, and that in a democracy, they represent an empty centre which no group, interest or institution can claim to incarnate. It has reduced the social domain to appointments and the privileges linked to them; and reduced differences to a slogan - «unity»!

The one party-like regime has so far tried to act like a vast refrigerator, replacing the habits of freedom with servitude; replacing the sovereignty of the people with the whims and caprices of administrative officials. It has given the false impression that official political expression like concocted motions of support are an expression of popular sentiments.

And the «opposition» has only helped to confuse the regime the more. By saying often that they would take action when they were not in a position to take it, the opposition and civil society allowed their bluff to be called so often that the regime became careless with the people. And so when the February upheavals came, they took them all off guard! The upheavals have left us with much speculation and many «facts» about the «»real» origin of the crisis. The process of sorting the «facts» from the truth is still on-going, accompanied by a most bizarre political communication strategy!

In the process, the hauty regime is so dazed by the effectiveness of people power that it still believes that the people are incapable of the feat! Somebody, obviously of «supernatural» powers must be behind it all, commandeering the people to unwillingly or unconsciously carry out their wishes!

Politics is a domain where the interaction of individual wills in various ways leads to the creation of a common will. Unfortunately, the repeated electoral «victories» of the regime have become an obstacle and a perennial illusion because they represent a utopian attempt to seize the people’s sovereign power through manipulations by a cabal. It has always been obvious that sooner or later, this would lapse into violence, destruction and killings. Indeed, the hydra-headed, polymorphous enemy that haunts the nights of the regime is neither the progressives, the G10, the G11 nor the «opposition»; it is democracy!

What is evident is that since the February upheavals, politics has entered one of those febrile, nervous phases in which events seem to be moving towards some momentous but unknown climax, almost independent of the wishes of the actors!

In the cacophony, we are witnessing the usual self-delusion in politics: individual politicians believing that they are better than the others, and that the people trust them more than they trust others! Some being foolish enough to think that they would be understood whatever they say; that people would read their minds and replace what they say with what they think they had to say! Some give the impression that handshakes and smiles on-camera can be the magic wand with which to sweep away the complicated problems the regime has weaved around us! To avoid the usual practice of eating their own words to remain credible, they should better always say what they mean and mean what they say.

Of course, conflicts and wars arise because we fail to consider the views of others, or communicate with them about mutual differences. Dialogue is a virtue in politics because it allows protagonists to find room for compromises that can save lives and in some cases, cause the mending of ways. Unfortunately, our politics since 1990 has been filled with mutual hatred and disrespect, to the extent that Paul Biya has not been able to bring himself to have direct communication with his «enemies» - the «opposition». He has instead indulged in secret deals, personal favours and intrigues, and thus failed to reassure the people that he has the nation’s good at heart.

Paul Biya should no longer confuse the leader pages of Cameroon Tribune for vox-populi. He should listen to the people attentively. He definitely has a lot of advice, but he should know that much of it is the advice of those who want to use him. In moments of crisis, or when issues are controversial like the one concerned with the amendment of the constitution of Cameroon, it is his bounden duty to listen to the people.

Power of Strike! Shaken, Paul Biya sues for peace! Yet rising people power threatens him

Courtesy - Harry Ndienla Yemti

Last month’s strike, for the first time ever in the long history of confrontation between the people and the government, revealed the balance of power in favour of the people. People power is a thing to beware of. That is why Paul Biya nervously hastened to make concession to fight rising peace; the first time he ever took a major decision to help the masses. Now unless he is willing to go all the way and work hard towards economical development and genuine democratization his regime will be doomed. He will face the wrath of the people.

Paul Biya certainly had a quieter weekend after he adopted important measures on Friday to fight a galloping inflation. The President truly deserved the applause that followed the announcement of the measures. It was the first time ever in his 25years in office that he made such a policy gesture in favour of the masses. Only a week before the president, who is by no means popular suffered more public opprobrium than anyone remembers in a long time. In a speech to the nation, Biya portrayed a shocking lack of touch with Cameroonians just when his understanding was much expected to end a strike that had sufficiently served its purpose in expressing the people’s grievances against the government. Biya’s disappointing outing only compound the damage done to the government by the strike whose success demonstrated a new sense of self-confidence among the masses.

The measures adopted on Friday were no doubt much welcome by the wide public, long resigned to economic hardships. What is interesting to note about the president’s gesture is that he acted out of fear of the ‘nightmare’ he experienced of the strike, which is why he hastened to ‘sue for peace’ The very fact that Paul Biya has never made any important concession to the masses-political, economic or social make the president’s sudden sense of weakness vis-à-vis the public something really to think about.

To face the fact, no one who observed the strike missed the new sense of self-confidence that the public demonstrated. When it ended everyone was satisfied the government had been taught a lesson. Indeed there began talk immediately that another strike was in preparation- sure evidence of this newfound power and the people’s eagerness to face the government. For the holder of absolute power that Paul Biya is, this must have been a truly worrisome development.
Not even the most predatory autocrat is comfortable about people power. In Romania in 1986, it was again the streets that seized power that crushed that country’s oppressive regime after the usually trigger-happy police for once disobey their supreme master Nicola Ceausescu. In the Philippines in 1986, it was again the streets that seized power from Ferdinand Marcos who, as incumbent, had claimed it after rigging an election as usual, all with Ronald Reagan’s approval.
Of the many factors that explain the coming rise of people power in Cameroon, two stand out, viz: the decline of the dissuasive power of the bullet and a corresponding sense of despair and a diminished self-worth among youth.

Long years of penury and unemployment among youth erode any sense of worth, leaving instead hopelessness about life, which easily gives way to acts of desperation. It is variants of this inner condition that inspire suicide, suicide bombers, acts of terror, and the willingness by economic migrants to undertake perilous sea voyages. And to that sense of despair the ready recourse to naked coercive force by the Biya regime.

Death resulting from gun-fire has become commonplace in Cameroon such that it is fast losing its sting. How else does one explain the fact that every successive ant-government demonstrated draws a bigger attendance when that of the previous week claimed lives- friends, colleagues and even relation? It is this new generation of youths who have nothing to live for and who don’t care about Biya’s bullets, that is at the base of the rising confidence of street power. With them taking the bullets, any anti-government movement will work. That is the new power that Paul Biya must reckon with. It was respect for it that the president hastened to make the anti-inflationary concessions of last weekend.

If the president will deal successfully with this new threatening power he will have to reverse much of these policies of the last twenty-five years that have been remarkably anti- people and elitist. It will be helpful for Biya not to wait until the people start demanding what they believe is their right. People power is not only potent, it is also unpredicted. The more he takes the public into confidence in dealing with them the more he will find it easy to control people power.
The history of decolonization in Africa which involved long years of struggling between the indigenous/ nationalist elite and their colonial rulers offers a useful lesson here. Each time the colonial rulers granted a concession, considering it something great, that only prepared the way for the nationalist fighters to demand more. That in turn only lengthened the struggle that often got really bitter and murderous.

The accounts of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana or of Nigerian nationalists as Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolow or of Herbert Macauley etc or of Kenneth Kaunda in Zambia, all teach the same broad lesson. At the height of economic measures in favour of the masses will be job creation hot by expanding the public sector but by the infusion of credit, for small and micro businesses. The goal should be to lift millions out of poverty and generate prosperity in as short a time as possible.

If Biya sincerely wants to turn public policy towards poverty alleviation much that is visible must happen to convince the public. Much money can be saved for that purpose from a considerable reduction in the size of the government and also of Cameroon’s sprawling diplomatic apparatus.

The daily operation of the government is also scandalously wasteful. Government processes are too much of a labyrinth and time consuming to support the implementation of the coming reforms. All good leadership is by example. Paul Biya’s lifestyle does not at all reflect the government’s flagship policy of poverty alleviation.

With more than three quarters of Cameroonians living on a dollar a day it is irreconcilable to know that Biya travels by a hired inter-continental jumbo jet at about one billion fcfa per journey at the taxpayer’s expense. In their powerlessness people say nothing until their opportunity comes. It is politics that will pose a much greater problem because of ego Investment. Paul Biya must drop his mischievous intention to continue in office beyond 2011 and prepare the nation for a free and fair election whereby Cameroonians will choose their next president.

If he is pro-active and takes leadership in enacting these reforms he will be surprised how easily he is forgiven his otherwise unpardonable political sins. In that way, unless Paul Biya willingly returns to the people what he has withheld from them for so long, i.e. genuine institutionalized democracy and a solid foundation for economic growth, he will face people power. That is better imagined than described.Courtecy, The Herald

Hurarah, Victory of the people

Masses force concessions out of Biya, weakened by strike

In frightened reaction to last week’s strike which the president himself referred to as a nightmare, Paul Biya announced measures to sue for peace with the masses. The question remains if he will now adopt a pro-people policy

By Douglas Achingale
The Herald

At the height of last month’s strike, President Paul Biya was booed and jeered by the nation including his partisans, when hiss to the nation portrayed him as being totally out of touch with the people. But last weekend it was applause to the president even by his critics after he made major concessions to the downtrodden masses. For the first time ever in all his 25 years in office, Paul Biya took a decision directed specifically to the welfare of the public who have suffered hardship and penury because of deliberate neglect by his regime.

The measures, in their very nature, were short-term. A challenge before the president is to follow through soon with measures of economic expansion and job creation. This would no doubt involve important investment in small business loans and social projects like more and better schools, medical services, rural roads, etc.

Unless the president is willing to follow through and soon with these measures and others, he will discover that he has awakened an appetite that in failing to satisfy only turns the wrath of the people more and more against him. Regularly, the president did not act out of strength. It was clear that the strike which proved so successful had exposed the government and him as vulnerable. Indeed the masses found a new strength in themselves to the point where a fresh wave of strikes was being rumored.

A salary increase which public sector workers have repeatedly asked for over many years and the cancellation of customs duty and value added tax on foodstuffs and a wide range of essential commodities were, in fact, welcome with much applause by the public. But this was perceived more as a victory over the government and the president rather than a freely given act of policy by Paul Biya.

It is this new relationship between the government and the people that the president must be careful about. With the balance of power shifting in favour of the masses, Paul Biya will need to make more and more economic and political concessions to the masses. The government will also be forced to strengthen its ability to speak convincingly to the masses as a way of getting them along with it where it does not have the goods to deliver.
On the political side, Biya must be ready to make democratic concessions. One thing the government must know in its new relationship with the people is that the easy resort to coercive power, i.e., the language of bullets, is increasingly less potent and dissuasive.