-
Chapter 2: The Perfect Nation is an Anathema to Multiculturalism
- LANGAA RPCIG
- Chapter
- Additional Information
61 Chapter 2 The Perfect Nation is an Anathema to Multiculturalism Despite our country’s immense economic potentials, material comfort is still the prerogative of a privileged minority, while poverty is the lot of the majority of Cameroonians.... such injustice existed and is still widespread in our society, leading to a great deal of frustration and eventual resignation [Biya, 1986: 10-11]. The President cannot be seriously regretting the existence of these forms of injustice in the Cameroonian society when he is tenaciously clinging to the root cause of the same – the perfect nation. On 6 November 1982 Biya, who since 1975 was President Ahidjo’s Prime Minister, became the president of Cameroon by virtue of a constitutional amendment of 29 May 1979. As constitutional historians like Delancey (1989, 70) would put it, after having swiftly abolished the prime minister post through which he became president, “Biya also changed the name of the country to the Republic of Cameroon, claiming that this symbolized greater unity than the previous United Republic of Cameroon. There was, he said, only one Cameroon people, so there was nothing left to be united.” The first and most important consequence to be drawn from this theory is that the president at that date had his long-sought perfect nation. Biya’s (1986: 27-30) ‘Perfect Nation’ is clearly against multiculturalism since it is specifically defined by the POR at page 29 as “The nation... [which] is characterized by a partial or total combination of certain specific material and spiritual elements which reinforce its homogeneity and its members’ awareness of unity. It is a union of communities with one race, language, territory, 62 economic life and history.” This is a type of nation that, for a diverse society like Cameroon, obviously excludes (1) the normal democracy and collective participation, ushering in (2) Kontchoumeterized participation, and (3) a new kind of ‘pluralistic democracy’ (discussed in Chapter 3). (The Usual) Democracy and Collective Participation The two are intertwined but for convenience I will first briefly survey democracy before seeing if there is collective participation in Cameroon, as claimed. Democracy has been found by both de Jorge (1993: 304, 301-302, & 306) and Biya (1986: 36) to have some universal characteristics. Based on the realization of this universality, the various forms of democracy have been briefly surveyed by the Encyclopedia Britannica and other writers like Archer and Reay62 who have advanced and described these four variants: direct democracy, representative democracy, economic democracy, and liberal or constitutional democracy. It is the last kind that is currently in vogue and fits into the question at hand. Liberal or constitutional democracy is a form of government, usually a representative democracy, in which the powers of the majority are exercised within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee all citizens individual and collective rights (such as equality, freedom of speech and of religion). As Riemer (1983:121) further explains, while some of the ideals of liberal democracy may change in both theory and practice, certain fundamentals will remain the same (the universal features). Its persistent democratic ingredients include (i) popular rule, (ii) freedom, and (iii) equality; while the persistent liberal ones include (a) constitutionalism, (b) protection of basic rights, 62 See The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Volume 4, 15th ed. (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc, 2002) at 5; and Peter Archer and Lord Reay, Freedom at Stake (London: The Bodley Head, 1966) at 163-64. [35.175.172.94] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 12:10 GMT) 63 and (c) political and economic competition and free choice both at the ballot box and in the marketplace. Riemer (ibid) adds that f actor (c) here has changed from a laissez-faire position to one that favours government intervention in the interest of the public welfare, social justice, and fair play. These requirements could partly explain why most genuine democracies of today do have some form of Bill of Rights (like the USA’s) and Charter of Rights and Freedoms like Canada’s The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, C.11; and The Charter of Paris for a New Europe. It was to take care of the problems of (cultural and ethnic) minorities, for example, that liberal or constitutional democracy has come to prevent the tyranny of the majority by requiring that the powers of the majority be exercised within a framework of constitutional restraints designed to guarantee...