No Trifling Matter: Contributions of an Uncompromising Critic to the Democratic Process in Cameroon

41 Basically a Fraudulent Victory

118 birthright at any time for any mess of pottage. We await the birth of our beautiful ones. 4 41 Basically a Fraudulent Victory (Published March 6-13, 1992) Among the undesirable character traits of Cameroonians is the tendency to get carried away by deceptive appearances to the detriment of palpable reality. This trait has manifested itself in the world of sports, especially football, and in the practice of heroworship . Many Cameroonians have got so carried away by the recent CPDM-organised parliamentary elections that they seem to have momentarily forgotten the very weighty reasons why these elections were inadvisable. People are now bemoaning the fact that, by boycotting the elections, the main opposition parties handed victory to the CPDM on a platter of gold. Some people are even going as far as talking about the “foolishness” of the boycotting parties. Some militants of the boycotting parties are even biting their fingers in regret. But all these are very superficial reactions and appraisal of this most recent development on our political chessboard. The “victory” of the CPDM in the just-concluded elections was not only predictable but predicted, and was both known and expected by all Cameroonians. That is not to say that there been no surprises. But the surprises have been in the details, not in the overall game. It was certainly surprising to see the competition to which the CPDM was subjected in areas which we all considered CPDM strongholds, where going to the elections was not in question. Even in these areas, the CPDM got a good run for its money or rather our money which it dished out right, left and centre to lure people to participate in the elections. If, in spite of bribery and corruption, in spite of intimidation and blackmail, in spite of its huge propaganda machinery so efficiently handled and co-ordinated by the CRTV’s socalled journalists, in all the provinces; if in spite of all these, the 119 CPDM did not win a landslide victory, then what would have happened if we had a fair electoral code, an independent electoral commission, and if every eligible voter had cast a vote in the elections? The CPDM would surely have had an earthquake failure. Those who are now regretting the boycott of the elections are reasoning backwards. The “victory” of the CPDM in these elections is demonstrably a fraudulent victory and, in spite of the present moment, the best thing remains to have boycotted the elections. Parties and voters who boycotted these elections did not make any mistake. It is, of course, ironic that the CPDM could be declared winner in boycotting opposition strongholds, where less than 5% of eligible voters went to the polls. But what this demonstrates is the unacceptable nature of the rules of the game. It is these rules that the boycotting parties were challenging. If you disagree with the rules of a game, then you cannot at the same time take part in arguments as to whether the rules you have rejected are being correctly applied. Anybody genuinely interested in democratic reforms in Cameroon, and not just in a cut of Dr. Biya’s cake, could not have participated in the March 1st elections. To have done so on the ground that abstaining would give Biya’s CPDM uncontested victory is to reason very poorly and to substitute expediency for principle. Expediency should never be substituted for principle, although, once the principles have been agreed, expedient methods could be used to achieve their goals. To do otherwise is to shift or run away from fundamental issues, and, as we all know, he who runs away from an inevitable fight lives to fight another day. In our struggle for a just and democratic Cameroon, the most fundamental requirement remains a constitution and an electoral code acceptable to all Cameroonians. Without these, there is no guarantee that fundamental human and democratic rights would be respected. Some people believe that the March 1st elections were fairly conducted, albeit with an unacceptable electoral code. This belief is naive and unwarrantable. The CPDM electoral code was flagrantly violated before our very eyes several times, and the violations justified expediently. Who is quite sure that the results declared reflect the reality in all case? On what ground can we support credulity? Are these not the very people who shot six people before 120 our very eyes and nearly convinced us that...