CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
by Sylvestre Tetchiada, Cameroon, March 1999
THEME = MINORITIES
The debate about the law for protecting minorities
in Cameroon's present Constitution and its politico- hegemonic contradictions,
exposes the depravity of a political clique
which is devoid of inspiration
The institutional crisis in Cameroon since the 1980s, is a crisis of the system and the thought processes from which the principles of the «State-as-provider» emanate. The ranting and raving about the law on minorities in Cameroon's present Constitution, are but a manifestation of the impasse into which the ethnic vision of Cameroon's leaders of all shades of opinion has led them. This law could also be «the result of a perverted interpretation of the modern way of free ideas which tends to theatricalize democracy in the name of democracy.» (Dr. Dieudonné Leuze, president of «Tribus sans Frontières»).
For some years, Cameroon's elite have been engaged in a kind of «Scramble of the res publica» - - which some of the «intellectual» class here call «postocracy», i.e. a frenetic race to get a position of importance. Such is the case of various organisations such as:
And various others...
These associations are the real powers out to upset the established order, described as the «civilisation of the oesophagus» and the «ideology of the belly» (Editor's note: expressions frequently used by many journalists in Cameroon to denote people "on the make", especially when it comes to public office). Ethnic pressure groups, who harbour in their ranks remnants of those who are nostalgic for revenge, can no longer be counted on.
The current legal and institutional provisions for minorities, must convince us of the reality of what is nowadays called in Cameroon, «the crisis of the social system». The suddenness with which this «arrangement» suddenly appeared in the 18 January 1996 Constitution, shows perfectly: a) What has been left unsaid; b) The innuendoes aimed at the nation's disintegration created and fostered by the gravediggers of national unity.
In Cameroon's basic laws and particularly in the Constitution, the intelligent observer is at a loss to fathom the contents þ-either obvious or hidden -þ of the idea of a minority. The law for protecting minorities is described by opposition Members of Parliament as «a veritable nebulous bastard offspring tainted with tribalism».
«Who is a minority in Cameroon and who is not?». This question formed the background to the debates organised by a dozen organisations on 28-29 December 1998 at Yaounde. Does a «minority» refer to territory, language, ethnic origin? (Editor's note: Cameroon has nearly 250 tribes) Or is it cultural, numerical, qualitative, religious or historical? The danger of manipulating such a complex make-up could prove to be dangerous and self destructive for a nation like Cameroon, badly in need of integration.
The real meaning of the implications should be sought in an analysis of the place of minorities in Cameroon's political, economic, cultural and social system. Certain factors, based on historical prejudice, mean that some groups have only a subordinate place in the distribution of wealth. Social and economic prejudice, and the political lesion which follows, could be at the root of a «minority complex».
But the source of problems could also arise from a reverse situation, where the privileged position - - real or imagined - - of a minority becomes unbearable for the majority. That is the case at the moment. In fact the essential workings of government, the sensitive and strategic positions, the official media and those who call the shots in the stock market, are monopolised by «the clan in power». According to the newspaper, Impact Tribune, 90% of them belong to the Bulu to which the President of the Republic also belongs.
Cameroon's minority complex situation has among other things a psychological dimension which has an effect on those who are so- classed. Simply because people are aware they belong to a minority group, they automatically presume they will experience the consequences of this at the hands of the «majority». They throw up defence mechanisms because of their persecution complex.
Cameroon's English-speaking people, represent a sociological and linguistic complex by the fact of their linguistic difference and their geographical and cultural proximity to the Bamileke (people of western Cameroon). They claim to be victims of a lesion, historically speaking. Thus, those «left-overs» from different political systems have formed an irredentist coalition: the Southern Cameroon's National Council (SCNC) as a means of vocal or violent counterattack, - - sometimes hidden, sometimes overt. The Social Democratic Front (SDF) [Editor's note: an opposition party bringing together the «pure and the hardliners» of the left under the presidency of John Fru Ndi] serves as a conduit for seditious tendencies among the Anglo-Bami of the region and of the Diaspora. (Editor's note: Anglo-Bami is an expression used by press people allied with the government, and is applied to anglophone people, those of the north-west and those of the west - - the Bamileke were won over by opposition parties).
To preserve our nation's social cohesion, which is today being put to the test, a new interpretation of our living together is needed. The elite must break with those theories which have no fundamental basis i.e. they're not down-to-earth theories. The prattle of speechifiers who like to listen to themselves speaking about the rights of minorities is, in fact, blind refusal to come to terms with the intelligentsia, who are looking for a way to come to power. «The issue is», according to Dr Dieudonné Leuze, «a matter of theological political violence, aimed at gaining or keeping oneself within the circle of "well-paid leaders" in a flabby state». The belittling of mentalities, the violation of consciences, the use of blasphemous or aggressive language in order to down-grade minorities, are clear examples of sucking up to the powers-that-be and so preserving ones place in the current set-up of the nation-state».
The Conference held on 28-29 December, attempted to react against this kind of mentality which tended to minimise minority groups. Some member of the civil society together with some NGOs, suggested a theory of «unity in diversity». But will this be understood?
END
ENGLISH CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
PeaceLink 1999 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement