Understanding Confusion in Africa: The Politics of Multiculturalism and Nation-building in Cameroon

Chapter 3: The One-Party System (Or ‘Pluralistic Democracy’) Is an Abomination to Multiculturalism

111 Chapter 3 The One-Party System (Or ‘Pluralistic Democracy’) Is an Abomination to Multiculturalism Paul Biya, according to Fohtung (1995) and Ahidjo (1996), had spent so many ‘patriotic’ years of his shadowy life in some of the highest offices of Cameroon, pretending to be something else so as to get to this almighty POR position in which, with the mere stroke of his pen, he can secure the hanging of his predecessor as well as decree his beloved Perfect Nation. The perfect nation is then a fait accompli in 1984 and nothing, absolutely nothing, on earth can therefore take this darling outmoded ‘perfect nation’ away from the POR. That can only happen over his dead body, or, to be precise, the death of Cameroon. That thesis from the critics can well explain why, despite all the bitter challenges directed at the 1984 name-change and the grave dangers it poses to national unity, it was again reaffirmed and confirmed by the 1996 Constitution. This 1996 reaffirmation logically leads to the questioning of what had happened to the ‘only one Cameroon people’ attained in 1984 (as justifying the name-change). Elusive national unity, always appearing and disappearing! Does that not happen simply in order to justify perpetuity in power? Monosity: Prerequisite for ‘Pluralistic Democracy’? Third World leaders, Riemer’s (1983: 187) argument thus runs, have often been pushed to instead tread their preferred road to Limbo (which is some sort of shortcut to Heaven) because of: (1) lack of an historical sense of belonging and working together; (2) the absence, often, of common language, religion, history, and custom; (3) the reality of widespread poverty and 112 illiteracy; (4) the divisive influence of caste and tribe... and (5) the lack of instrumentalities that function to keep a nation together, such as effective national leadership, political organization, civil servants, national economic ties, and national education [the numbering has been added]. These so-called obstacles, according to Riemer (1983: 187-88) of Drew University, “help to explain why many of the new states have often moved away from liberal or even democratic socialist ideas and toward rule by a strong charismatic leader, a single party, a disciplined military junta, and even (often reluctantly) toward authoritarian methods in order to foster primary national values.” Does this roundabout bullshit give enough cover to the African leadership? I do not think so because it is the absence of the first example of the fifth factor that is largely responsible for the existence or absence of all the others. With the type of patriotic and charismatic people Riemer describes as being in leadership positions in the Third World, the socalled democracy ‘inhibiting factors’ can clearly not provide any excuse for regression. I will take you later to Indonesia during the elaborate lessons in patriotism and charismatic leadership but, for now, it is even untenable to employ those factors to justify the absence of the same thing (democracy) one is claiming to have. As Fossungu has argued, Democracy must be nurtured and developed through channelling or curtailing those so-called ‘inhibiting’ factors as illiteracy, poverty, tribalism, etc. Using them to instead justify the noninstitution of good and responsible governance would be clear evidence of non-charisma and absence of patriotism; not to forget that it is also philosophically untenable, especially when, at the same time, the same Cameroonians would be claiming the very democracy whose absence they appear to be justifying. Demoncrazy appears to be precisely what is in place in Cameroon. 113 Illiteracy and poverty can only justify that.105 Further illustration of the points can be found in Konings and Nyamnjoh (1997: 224 & 210); all pointing to the persistent stance from the Unity Palace that looks at federalism not as a means of channelling, but as the actual cause of, the country’s multifarious diversity – cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious in particular. This diversity, according to the authorities, has been standing in the way of democracy and must first be eliminated for the purposes of national unity: only after the doing of which can pluralistic democracy (if that is not tautological) come.106 The oneness of the Cameroonian People (perfect nation) of 1984 was the prelude to this “pluralistic” democracy, it was claimed. But why has this tautological type of democracy not be instituted since 1984 with the existence of only one Cameroon people? The surprising answer is that the national unity situation of Cameroon...