Beyond the storm and emotions:

Atangana Mebara ruminates on Anglophone Crisis

Atangana Mebara

For one year now, there is trouble in the English-speaking Regions of Cameroon.

From my prison exile, I have been following the evolution of what is now called the “Anglophone crisis”.

I have had the opportunity of receiving, on their demand, some Anglophone leaders of the Consortium, jailed in the Kondengui prison, for a few months for some of them. They gave me the opportunity to better know and understand the grievances of our Anglophone brothers and sisters, and to appreciate their state of mind.

After our conversations, I realised that the crisis would never had reached the present stage, if otherwise managed.

What is going on in the Anglophone regions and what I have heard from certain Francophone persons, cannot leave any patriot of this nation indifferent. In spite of my situation as prisoner, I consider myself a patriot;  a responsible patriot. No court decision prohibits me from taking part in any debate that is important in nation building.

The crisis can no longer be the problem of the government alone or that of the Head of State, President BIYA, although his constitutional responsibility is obvious, because he has taken an oath of office to defend and preserve the territorial integrity of the Nation.

It is thus imperative for each Cameroonian and all persons who love Cameroon to feel concerned.

Writing this article, is my own way of contributing to the debate on the Anglophone crisis.

I seize this opportunity to express my love and my loyalty to this Nation, our beloved country as dreamt by our forefathers who decided years back, freely, to constitute a bilingual nation, with an Anglophone entity and a Francophone section.

I plead that, tomorrow, when I am out of this prison, God willing, I could take my children to Bamenda, Buea, Mamfe, Bachuo-Akagbe, Kumba,  Kumbo,  Mbengwi,  Limbe,  Bali-Nyonga, Bakingili, Idenau, without asking for a visa, without any fear, with the feeling that we could stay there, as long as we want, quietly and peacefully.

This my modest contribution will consist, first of all, in asking a few questions; secondly, there will be some proposals, submitted for debate.

But I  plead the readers to be indulgent with me if my insight is not whole. For, in my situation, I might not be in possession of all the elements and facts for a detailed and deep analysis.

ISSUES OF CONCERN

WHAT DO WE HEAR GENERALLY?

Through some private media outlets, I realised that some Francophone Cameroonians vehemently asserted that there is no Anglophone problem.

I also heard an Anglophone top ranking State official saying that Anglophones do not have any problem.

I heard some other individuals, Francophones in the majority, claiming that the problems and grievances raised by Anglophones are the same other Cameroonians in the Francophone regions are facing.

There are also people, generally Anglophone elite and some of the Intelligence Services of the State, who argue that those who want secession are the minority within the Anglophone population. I am not that sure. However, if this were to be the case, wouldn't it be important and timely to address the problem seriously in order to avoid the secessionists to become the majority?

I also heard a few Francophones saying that they support the Anglophone movement , because, as they put it, the movement can be a prelude to the Big Night, the Revolution Night…Fortunately such support is only in thoughts, words and, for some, in prayers. The first question to such opportunist supporters is : if Francophones are exhausted by President BIYA’s regime, why don’t they organise themselves?  Why would they try to hide behind their Anglophone brothers to reach their political objectives? 

In effect, whatever we feel about President BIYA, is it right for some of us to deliberately destroy all what our parents and ourselves have been building for so many years, with its failures and successes, just because of one person?

In my humble opinion, nothing can justify a decision to jeopardise the unity of our Nation.

Cameroon, as it is today, is an edifice built by many generations and cultures. It is not the heritage of a single individual. The nation does not belong to Mr. BIYA or to anybody else. It is the common property of all Cameroonians; born Cameroonians or those who acquired nationality by virtue of naturalization.

We cannot forget all what has been built since October 1961, by Anglophones and Francophones. I can vividly recall that in the early nineties, while Francophones were opposed to what they called “precipitated democracy”, it is our Anglophone brothers and sisters, mainly Mr John FRU NDI, with the young people around him, that clamoured for democracy, sometimes unfortunately by giving their lives, to implement and improve State governance in our beloved country.

Nothing can, thus, justify the destruction of our Nation, a Nation that we have been constructing. It is our common heritage… Let us not allow our feelings and emotions to take over our judgement or our brain.

AND WHAT DID I HEAR FROM OUR ANGLOPHONE BROTHERS AND SISTERS?

Most of the Anglophones express a feeling of not being at ease within this Republic, in its present way of functioning. We have also seen them, on the streets of many towns, in the North-West as well as the South-West Regions, youths and adults, even elderly men and women, marching, sometimes going into violence (unfortunately), to denounce their treatment by the State and its servants. They say “we are suffering in this Republic”. Others say they do not want to continue to be part of this Cameroon. Actually, we can see tears in the eyes of some. We can hear their shouts of distress, the echoes of disillusion are overwhelming. We saw victims of bullet wounds, some shot to dead...All these notwithstanding, how some people still say there is no Anglophone problem?

When our Anglophone brothers and sisters are asking why one of theirs have never been appointed to certain State functions, can Francophones also say that there are functions that they have never occupied in this Nation? Functions such as : the Secretary General at the Presidency of the Republic, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Economy and Finance, the Minister of Territorial Administration and Decentralisation, the Minister of Public Service and Administrative Reforms, the Minister of External Relations, the Delegate General for National Security...   Who can therefore say the problems of Anglophones are the same as those of Francophones? Who can say all the issues raised concern both Francophones and Anglophones?

To these functions, let us add, without being exhaustive,  the management of parastatals such as the National Hydrocarbons Corporation (SNH), the National Oil Refinery  Corporation (SONARA), the National Social Insurance Fund (CNPS), the Cameroon Telecommunications (CAMTEL), the Cameroon Radio and Television (CRTV), the Douala Ports Authority, the National Directorate of the Central Bank (BEAC).  The present dispensation of the topmost functions of the State definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouths of Anglophones. The first four personalities are all Francophones: the Head of State, the President of the Senate, the President of the National Assembly, the President of the Economic and Social Council. And Anglophone, the Prime Minister and Head of Government arrives at the fifth position.

Should anybody blame our Anglophone brothers and sisters when they ask, loudly, about this strange and harmful predestination that condemns them and their children to be, always, the second best in the service of the State, although they have, sometimes, better qualifications than their Francophone bosses?

Who can explain why, in certain Francophone regions, more often (sometimes in Anglophones regions), one will find, in front of public buildings or services, signboards in one language, and where there is a translation, the writings in French are bigger than the ones in English? Is there any law or government directive prescribing such discrepancies?

When our Anglophone brothers and sisters complain that in the public services in Francophone regions, the Anglophone citizens are almost obliged to speak in French and at times insulted when they speak in English, who can say it is not true? Can anybody  also refute the fact that Anglophone civil servants in Francophone regions, are obliged to address Francophone users in French?

My last question is rather theoretical : what would have been the analysis and opinions if status were to be swapped; meaning, if Francophones were the minority and Anglophones the majority of the population ? How would the Francophones have reacted if they had to systematically face discrimination in State services and poorly considered in State matters? Would it not be their right to know why they are treated like that?

IDEAS  FOR A DEBATE

I feel that Francophones should, first of all, admit, with humility,  that their Anglophone brothers and sisters have specific problems, because of their specificity. Our brother, Professeur Achille MBEMBE, rightly said a few months back that “there is a specificity of the Anglophone question; and recognizing it, is the first step to a lasting solution of the conflict that is taking place” 27/01/2017 Facebook).

Francophones must remember that their Anglophone brothers  were not submitted to the same type of colonial rule ( Mandate or Trusteeship). With their Traditional Rulers, they used to manage their local affairs, without waiting for instructions from the capital city. They have not been educated in the Francophone-submission culture where, submission to any authority designated by the State, is almost a religion. One can therefore understand that our Anglophone brothers and sisters are not at their ease in a very centralised State management, as their Francophone brothers could be.  

Recognising this specificity does not mean that I am not aware of the governance issues affecting the other regions of the country, with their negative impact on the lives of the citizens.

The second idea I dare share is related to the dialogue that President BIYA and other Cameroonians want protagonists to engage into. First of all, I want to add my voice to those of  other Anglophones and Francophones, who have called for this dialogue.

Now that each party has shown its determination, strength and capacity to stick to its position, unfortunately with victims, it is time to give up pride and arrogance for genuine dialogue to have a chance.

There is a Chinese proverb that says: all the wars end where they should have started, around a table.

The history of the world is rich in examples of dialogue between former enemies. There is the case of North Ireland; very recently, we have the case of Colombia. We can also put the shattered pieces together through dialogue.

Later or sooner, Cameroonians from both sides of the Mungo river have to go into a sincere and brotherly dialogue, that would take into consideration all opinions.

If Francophones want to know more about the sufferings of their Anglophone brothers and sisters, the only way, in my humble opinion, is to talk with them, to organize that dialogue. And I am certain that among Anglophones there are many who want to go into dialogue.

I pray the extremists of both sides to abstain from destroying the so-much-longed-for dialogue.

The questions now are : What type of dialogue? Between who? To talk about what? And what could be the anticipated results.

WHAT TYPE OF DIALOGUE

My opinion is that for this dialogue to be effective, it should be sincere, brotherly and inclusive. It should bring together Cameroonians of the different regions and various opinions.

About sincerity, it might be difficult to convince Anglophone leaders and people that the proposed dialogue could be sincere. Obviously, for many Anglophones, since 1961, Francophone politicians have not been as sincere as expected with them. In effect, in 1961, our Anglophone brothers and sisters accepted to join the Republic of Cameroon, in order to constitute a FEDERAL REPUBLIC; twelve years later, in 1972, the Federal Republic was abandoned, replaced by the United Republic of Cameroon, with a very centralised presidential system. One would say it was after a referendum; yes, but when Anglophones accepted to join the Republic of Cameroon, the Francophones were not consulted; it was only the people of the Anglophone regions that were consulted.

Twelve years later, in 1984, even that United Republic was scrapped off and replaced by the Republic of Cameroon. Such changes led to the disappearance of the second star on our national flag, through a constitutional reform with the amended Constitution adopted by the National Assembly. Some Anglophones resented this, as they saw in it  a return to the Republic of Cameroon of 1960. That is why most Anglophones are still to accept the fact that they have been dissolved in the Republic of Cameroon where nothing can remind them of the  fact that it is for a Federal Republic that Anglophone Leaders, of those years, accepted to join the Republic of Cameroun. Some others argue that, if, during the 1961 referendum, the Anglophones had accepted to join the Federation of NIGERIA, for example, they would have been, today, one of the States constituting the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

To the majority of Anglophones, the Reunification has been a “Contract to dupe one party”.

Francophones ought to remember this, always, if we really want to engage in sincere dialogue and move the nation forward.

I have the fear that after what happened during the last months and weeks, the mistrust towards Francophone politicians has increased.

I do not imagine a direct dialogue between the Government and the new Anglophone leaders; those who, in the streets and the villages, through the social networks, are now considered by the Anglophones as their heroes, and seen today as more qualified to bear their grievances and claims. The new generation of Anglophones feel that their elderly elite, those occupying high State functions, have abandoned the Reunification ideals, or have betrayed the Anglophone people, for the sake of personal egoistic advantages.

Consequently, it could be risky for the Head of State to choose, among that Anglophone elite, those who could participate in the announced dialogue. These Anglophone elite might not stand the chance to be accepted and followed by the majority of Anglophone people. 

The temptation might be to seek for an international mediation.

But, I am not sure that it is time to internationalize the discussion. Our partners that have helped, many years back and recently, and those willing to help should accept to stay behind the scene, behind the curtain; they could be more efficient there. In family setting, when a crisis occurs in a couple, the spouses try, first, to solve it by themselves. Let us restrain from relying on others to solve our problems. We should come together, sincerely and brotherly, to seek the solution to the crisis. If we start with the international mediation, and that one fails, what shall we do next? On the contrary, if a dialogue organised by Cameroonians,  among us (with the discretion support of our partners, if necessary), were to fail, we could then call for international mediation.

I remember vividly how at the end of the year 1990, many Francophones were marching behind their regional or tribal leaders to say “No to multi party politics”, talking of “precipitated Democracy”. During a speech within his party’s General Assembly, President BIYA, surprisingly, asked his comrades to prepare themselves for political competition. They were flabbergasted.

In the present context, one can dream similarly that, very soon, just after his return to Cameroon, during an official statement or speech, in Bamenda or Buea, President BIYA will announce : “I do recognize the specificity of Anglophone Regions; I have therefore decided to set up a national committee of compatriots, that will propose measures that will concretise and officialise this specificity”. And he will add : “I solemnly reiterate that all Anglophone citizens are fully entitled to benefit from their rights, the same rights that the Francophone citizens of this Nation enjoy”.

In that perspective, I humbly submit to debate, the idea of setting up a National Committee of Conciliation, with credible and reliable Cameroonian citizens, with a mandate to address the Anglophone crisis and propose consensual measures to resolve it, durably.

Its composition could  be inspired by the Commission of Laws and liberties, set up in 1990, that contributed so much to the democratisation and the liberalisation of this country. Such a Committee should be manned by Anglophones and Francophones, people from religious milieu, universities, trade unions, law. It should have men and women of integrity, youths and adults as well.

The majority of them should be from the civil society, under the Chair of a person like Archbishop KLEDA of Douala, or any other religious leader.

Concerning persons who could be part of such a Committee, if I am authorised to give a few names, I will cite citizens like : Mr ABOUEM A TCHOYI, Prof AJAGA NJI, Prof KONTCHOU KOUEMEGNI, Barrister AGBOR-BALLA, Dr FONTEM NEBA, Dr ACHA MORFAW Diana, Journalist Valentin ZINGA, journalist BOH Herbert, Prof Simon MUNZU, Dr Carlson ANYANGWE, Me Alice NKOM, Pr Jean KOUFAN, Dr DZE NGWA, Cheikh HOUSSAINI WAZIRI, Mrs Margaret TENDO, Mrs Dorothy FORBIN, retired magistrate Toussaint ZIBI NSOE,  Traditional Rulers such as Fon FORBUZIE .... and others.

This Committee would have the possibility to consult with any citizen or expert who could contribute to chart the way forward.

If the Committee feels that there are problems that concern other regions of the Nation, they should make proposals to fix them.

They will have a maximum of three months, for example, to table their conclusions.

WHAT WOULD THEY DISCUSS ?

They will delve on all the grievances raised by Anglophones, from 1961 till date; and for each of them, they will list the possible solutions, the practicable ones. In a recent paper, addressed to a certain François-Marc MODZOM, Mr Abdelaziz MOUNDE NJIMBAM raised, very brightly and correctly, many of those grievances.

There should be no taboo subject. I do not see any objection for them to discuss federalism, if it appears as the most effective solution for a more harmonious common life.

I hear some people proposing that it should be called a kind of National Conference, in order to discuss the global malaise of the Nation, the Anglophone problem being one of the elements of that malaise. It could be a way. But, remembering the experience of 1990/1991, I have a profound doubt that President BIYA, who had said, in those years, that “A National Conference is not applicable in Cameroon”, could nowadays accept it.

Furthermore, my conviction is that we should avoid miscellany while trying to resolve a specific crisis; this will be a way of watering down the response. There is a problem raised by our Anglophone brothers and sisters; let us not close our eyes; let us respect our brothers by hearing them; and let us try to give them back the desire to pursue our common destiny, freely, willingly, with pleasure and joy. Then, later on, we could, together, tackle the other problems relating to the development and governance of the State.

WHAT COULD BE THE ANTICIPATED OUTCOME

The Committee will be asked to bring suggestions to end the crisis and enable Cameroon to move forward harmoniously. Those suggestions might relate to Institutional or administrative issues of our common life. In one way or another, it appears to me, very clearly, that we could not avoid to delve on the specificity of the Anglophone regions and people within the marble of the Constitution. The members of the Committee should reflect, deeply and precisely, on how to achieve that idea.

They should also bring proposals on what must be done, very urgently; then what should be envisaged in the next six months, before presidential elections.

The proposals of the Committee should be sent to the President of the Republic, who would forward them to the Parliament. The Parliament could be called for an extraordinary session, for the adoption of the bills proposed.

While concluding this paper, I do recognize that for dialogue to be effective, there are measures that must be taken, if we aim at destroying mistrust first and building new confidence.

Among those measures, I believe, as others, that the release of the people arrested during the crisis events would be the first.

I also feel that the launching, without any delay, of an inquiry into the violence in the Anglophone regions, on the 1st of October, 2017, could be a positive move towards a sincere and efficient dialogue.

Some other Anglophone citizens in jail, arrested many years back within the “sparrow hawk operation”, who can contribute in solving this crisis, could also be released.

By the way, the President of the Republic may need, for the benefit of the Nation, to renew, fundamentally, the Anglophone Elite at the highest levels of the State. And there is no doubt for me that there are many young and competent Anglophone citizen, anonymous, in different administrations and parastatals, as well as within the private sector.

To crown it all, some government officials and those of the ruling party in particular, should be instructed to stop fuelling the crisis with provocative and threatening declarations towards the people who do not share the opinions. They have not been contributing to prepare a peaceful and constructive dialogue.

For, people from both sides who will be involved in the announced dialogue, will need peace of mind.

May God bless and protect our dear Fatherland, and keep it united.

                              ATANGANA MEBARA J.M