By Tazoacha Asonganyi in Yaounde.
The CPDM regime wrote a
“Vision-2035” in which it considers its first challenge to be the consolidation
of democracy and the enhancement of “national unity” in a “united and
indivisible nation enjoying peace and security.” “National unity” is said to be
a “permanent and ambitious goal” in a country where “threats, risks and
obstacles” include the management of the “dual Anglophone-francophone heritage,”
having succeeded to ensure “original cohabitation between the English-speaking
and French-speaking systems…” Although there have been “divergences as seen in
the violent representation of remote identities as well as outbreak of tensed
or even irredentist conflicts,” they were contained by a “pro-active and strong
state, capable of containing centrifugal forces and enhancing national
solidarity…”
The
“consolidation of democracy” is said to imply “the existence of a
constitutional state, (and) promotion and respect for individual and collective
freedoms.”
It is within this backdrop of the
declaration of intent in the so-called “vision-2035” that we recall a cardinal
principle of modern international law, binding on all nations, especially
members of the United Nations: the right of self-determination, or the right of a people to freely choose their
sovereignty and international political status.
Although
consensus on the type of groups or
“peoples” that can claim the right to self-determination is not well defined,
Anglophone Cameroonians - Southern Cameroonians as they are known - enjoyed the
status by their treatment as an entity, as a League of Nations Mandated
Territory and a United Nations Trust Territory. Further, their walkout en masse
from the Eastern Nigerian House of Assembly in Enugu in 1953, their
self-governing status in Buea from 1954-1961, and their participation in a
UN-organised plebiscite in 1961 more than defined them as a people that enjoys
such a status. In addition to all these, the recognition of persons of Southern
Cameroons origin as “a people” with the right of self-determination by the
African Commission for Human and People’s Rights was a reflection of these
historical acts that marked them out as such.
Of course, the decision to gain
independence by joining the Republic of Cameroun in 1961 did not abrogate this
right. Unlike the Americans that sat down in 1789 and hammered out the
conditions for a “one and indivisible union,” the Southern Cameroons delegation
refused the use of the word “indivisible” in Foumban, leading Ahidjo to state
in his concluding remarks that: “in order to avoid a certain confusion that might arise from the
word ‘indivisible’, we admit that it should purely and simply be omitted.”
Indeed, it is because such union status did not
always abrogate the right of self-determination that many other such unions in
history ended in reversals. In this wise, the September 18, 2014 vote on
independence in a referendum in Scotland after a 307-year union in the United
Kingdom, is an example of the continued right of self-determination of peoples
that join such unions. It will be recalled that Ireland opted out of the UK
arrangement since 1922, through a similar independence referendum. No need to
mention Quebec in Canada, and many other peoples in similar unions.
The ban in Cameroon on the creation of political
parties that “threaten national unity,” is against the spirit of international
law. The consequence of the ban is the emergence of organizations like the
Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC). The constant confrontations with
the security forces of the Cameroon “nation state” as recently occurred in
Mamfe at the burial of the Chairman of the SCNC Chief Ayamba, is an affront to
the right of self-determination of a people that consider themselves oppressed
in the Cameroon union. Indeed, the slogan of the organization that professes
“the force of argument, not the argument of force” is a disarming slogan that
exposes the “pro-active and strong state, capable of containing centrifugal
forces” as an oppressive state that uses totalitarian methods.
Those with a good knowledge of human nature like
Malcolm Gladwell usually say that endurance and survival of the trauma of
constant brutalization by security forces has a liberating effect which gives
birth to courage. Excessive use of force creates legitimacy problems, which
give birth to defiance, not submission. Defiant persons can be killed or maimed
by brutal use of state power, but invariably, it only leads to the appearance of
more defiant people.
It is usually said that some revolutions are started
not by revolutionaries in the first place, but by the stupidity and brutality
of regimes. The “pro-active and strong state, capable of containing centrifugal
forces” in Cameroon should worry about what organizations like the SCNC think about
the regime because, like it or not, their opinion counts! When unjust laws are
applied in the absence of legitimacy, it leads to disobedience, not obedience. Power
is not just physical force; it has many forms.
The CPDM regime should reflect deeply on the
consequences of the constant arrest, torture and detention of SCNC members. The
regime should reflect on the consequences of their standoff with the
organization in Tiko following the demise of Martin Ngeka Luma some years ago,
and more recently, in Mamfe following that of Chief Ayambe Ette Otun in Mamfe -
both leaders of the “irredentist” SCNC.
No comments:
Post a Comment