By Professor Asonganyi Tazoacha*
 |
| Professor Asonganyi Tazoacha |
Many people are anxious to know my
take on the goings on that are making news in the SDF now. Rather than
write a statement as would probably be expected, I prefer to help interested
persons to discern my feelings by including below, information that may be
useful to them for their analyses. This includes the statement I made on the
constitutional changes that have brought more confusion in the party, the
parting statement I made at a press conference indicating that I would no
longer run for the post of Secretary General, NEC’s decision that expelled me
from the SDF - in other word, I never resigned as SG of the SDF; and a
reflection I wrote for The Guardian Post Newspaper, on their request, on “Where the SDF
has gone wrong.”
Siga Asanga was the Secretary
General of the SDF from the declaration of the party at the DO’s office in
Bamenda in February 1990 to March 1994 when he was tried and removed from his
post. The problems that led to his destitution and eventual exclusion from the
party were related to fuzziness and imprecision in the definition of terms like
“anti-party” activities. The problem of Siga Asanga bordered on serious
differences in the understanding of the mission of the party by him and some stalwarts
of the party, including Fru Ndi.
Since Siga Asanga did not share the
views of Chairman Fru Ndi on some core issues in the party, some members seemed
to see him as a sort of rival to Fru Ndi. To quote one member at that time,
Siga Asanga felt that “power at the head of the party was shared by the
Secretary General and the Chairman; I therefore personally campaigned for the
destitution of Asanga…”
Of course, if Asanga thought that
power at the head of the party is shared by the Secretary General and the
Chairman, he was right; power at the head of the party should not only be
shared by the Chairman and the SG, but by other officials of the party. Since
many members unfortunately did not share this view, Asanga was removed from the
post of Secretary General.
It is clear from the above that
Asanga’s problem derived mainly from a turf war with the National Chairman. He
was the ideologue of the party. He believed firmly in the ideology of social
democracy propounded by the party, and in the values of freedom and human
rights that were the bedrock of the party.
And so by the time I became
Secretary General of the SDF in 1994, there was already a strong, conservative
core in the party, made up of those with a dogmatic adherence to the letter, to
the exclusion of the spirit of the constitution of the party, and who seemed to
be bent on shutting the door in the face of rationality.
The saga of the SDF as I lived it is
treated in a book to be launched soon titled “Cameroon: Difficult Choices in a
Failed Democracy – A Memoir” (also published in French:- Cameroun: Choix
Difficiles Dans Une Démocratie de Faҫade) ISBN 978-0-9916615-2-7, NGT
Publishing, USA, 352 pages.
Here are the documents.
At an SDF Youth Forum that held in
Yaoundé on 07 April 2005, I commented as follows on a proposed constitutional
amendment of the SDF Constitution - this led to other comments from Nyo'Wakai,
Ngwasiri, Kale and others:
I draw your attention to the
emergence of political currents, geared towards the establishment of a
leader-centred culture in our party! I stumbled on what is called a proposed
amendment of the Constitution of our party just two days ago. The mover of the
amendment paints the “leader” as all-knowing, and the people (the militants) as
naive, ignorant, and gullible. Dissent is presented under the cloak of
quarrels. The consequence is that the proponent proposes that we only vote the
“leader” and the “leader” will know best who to choose into the National
Executive Committee! Interesting, it is said that nearly all socialist parties
do this. If only he knew that the Labour party (UK) and others use all the militants
of their party to elect their NEC members!
If such thinking were to gain
currency in our party, I fear that the whole philosophy of the SDF will be
turned upside down, and the party will lose its raison-d’être. There will be
absolutely nothing to differentiate the SDF from the failed Cameroon state that
has been ruined by this “leader-centred” mentality or from the CPDM where one
man calls the shots! It should be remembered that the Constitution of the party
makes provisions for replacing absentee members of an executive, or for filling
vacant posts!
Checks and balances in our party are
ensured by a robust NEC, a robust Advisory Council, and the devolution of power
to lower party structures. This appointment-jittery fringe in the party should
ponder the fate of the National Advisory Council, which is supposed to be a
counter-balancing force, but which is virtually non-existent because its
members have to be…appointed. Those who are supposed to ensure the existence of
the important institution are reluctant to establish the very institution which
will check the arbitrary exercise of their own power! Let us not fall in the
same trap we sought to get out of through the creation of the SDF...
On 27 September 2005, I made the
following statement to announce that I would no longer run as SG at the
upcoming elective convention of the party:
As you may be aware, the Primaries
for the renewal of the National Executive Committee of the SDF were launched on
05 September 2005 in conformity with the texts of our party. The ritual has
always been observed, especially since I became Secretary General of the SDF on
Sunday 19 June 1994. Since then, I have worked selflessly for the SDF, and have
always put party and national interests before self-interest; and of course
national interest before party interest.
This time around, with the launching
of the primaries for NEC, I have decided no longer to present my candidature
for a post in NEC. I thought that I should invite you, our good friends
of the press who have been effective companions in the struggle for change in
our country all these years, to inform you about this. I know that you will be
interested to know why I have taken such a decision. Well, there are
several reasons for it.
I feel strongly that the leadership
of the party of which I am an important member has so far not succeeded in
turning the formidable SDF machine into an effective catalyst for change in our
country. Indeed, based on the resolutions of the 1999 Yaoundé Convention which
empowered NEC to look for all other avenues to bring change to Cameroon, the
outgoing NEC was not able, or was unwilling to create real opportunities to
bring change to our country. I feel that this failure was due to lack of
a shared vision within the leadership, since we failed to clearly identify and
prioritise the different circles of “self,” “party,” and “country.”
As you will agree with me, these
differences in vision and internecine quarrels have dominated the life of the
outgoing leadership. Some of these were due to the emergence of a personality
cult, which has as corollary the emergence of the all-knowing chief. When this
happens in a group, all criticism, even the constructive is considered as a
crime against the chief. In such an atmosphere, sincerity, solidarity and
friendship are replaced by suspicion and calumny. A team that does not show
love, friendship and solidarity within itself is not well placed to promote
these values either in the party or in the country at large.
Further, there is persistent rumour that
the leadership of the SDF not only has regular, secret contacts with the CPDM
regime but also receives substantial secret funding from the regime. Of the
substance of such rumours, I am completely innocent and ignorant. This seems to
have greatly compromised the effectiveness not only of the SDF but also of the
opposition in Cameroon. Unfortunately, the divergent visions and quarrels
within the leadership have blocked the possibility of discussing and adequately
evacuating the rumours.
You know that in all democratic
organizations, the majority carries the day. Unfortunately, with the treatment
of some disciplinary files in the party, I have started questioning the use of
discipline as an effective instrument of promoting democracy in our Party. Some
of the disciplinary files have been glaring examples of abuse of proceedings to
stifle debate, deny members their basic democratic rights or have a go at
perceived opponents of the leadership. Indeed, coupled with these abuses,
issues of reconciliation in the party, long ruled on by the 1996 Buea
Convention, and hesitantly brought to fruition on 8 September 2004 at the SDF
Reconciliation Forum, continue to be treated in a self-protective manner by
some of us.
As a member of the outgoing
leadership, I fully share responsibility for these failures and weaknesses and
strongly feel that new blood should be given the chance to oil and run the
formidable SDF machine, and provide a new image of leadership and of the
party. I do hope that such new leadership will wipe out some of the
perceptions about the present leadership and create a healthy atmosphere for
the functioning of the SDF machine, rekindle the flame of militancy and the
full embrace of the SDF vision, put the machine in harmony with other genuine
opposition forces in the country and thus convert the SDF into a true
locomotive of the forces of change. I also hope that such new leadership will
be less self-protective and more aware of the reinvigorating role not only of
reconciliation but also of proper disciplinary procedures within the SDF, and
so turn the machine into a real catalyst for change in our country.
Finally, I also have the strong
feeling that no one should hold an elective or public office for perpetuity. It
is needless to say that I will continue to play my full role as Secretary
General until a new one is elected at the upcoming Convention of our party.
After the convention, there will be a proper handing over, according to our
rules. Further, I will remain a strong, active and vocal militant of the
SDF. I will be fully available to the leadership that will emerge following the
7th Ordinary Convention of the SDF in February 2006.
Thank you very much for
coming. I look forward to our continued cooperation. I know that some of
you will like to ask me some questions. I will be pleased to answer them. Once
more, thank you very much.
On 06 February 2006 I was served the
following document in French (my translation) by a Bailiff Mah Ebenezer Paul:
Social Democratic Front. Meeting of
the Disciplinary Council of 28 February 2006. In the year 2006, and on 28
January 2006, meeting in extraordinary session at the Presbyterian Church
Centre Ntamulung in Bamenda, the National Executive Committee, meeting as a
Disciplinary Council, ruled on the affair of Tazoacha Asonganyi Michael,
suspended Secretary General of the party, and deliberated as follows:
-
Considering the constitution and internal rules and regulations of the party,
as subsequently amended:
-
Considering rules of discipline of members;
-
Considering resolutions of previous NEC meetings;
-
Considering the statements made by Prof. Tazoacha Asonganyi Michael during a
press conference on 27 September 2005 in Yaoundé;
-
Considering the different submissions in his disciplinary file;
-
Considering the different opinions expressed during the debate;
-
Considering the result of the vote to determine the sanction;
Deliberation:
Unique article: With effect from 28 February 2006,
takes note of the loss of membership of the SDF by Prof Tazoacha Asonganyi
Michael in conformity with the provisions of section 8.2 of the Constitution.
Done in Bamenda, 28 January 2006, The President of the Disciplinary Council,
Etienne Sonkin.
Where the SDF has gone wrong
This title is suggested to me by the Editors of the
Guardian Post Newspaper who asked me to participate in a reflection on the life
of the SDF.
Political parties are like war games. The ebb and flow
of events provide patterns on which to construct a narrative. The key events
are obvious; winners and losers are also generally obvious; and outcomes can be
traced back to specific decisions and trends. Outside watchers may usually not
have clear markers to indicate exactly what happened, except perhaps what they
tease out of recorded declarations, critiques, and official party texts.
Within this context, I will address four of the many
problems that beset the SDF and led to its weakening.
Problem
Number one: Founding Fathers.
Some operations are fated to go wrong from the start.
The SDF was created to win power and govern. Its birth was facilitated by
persons who later branded themselves “founding fathers.” By the constitution
which they helped to write, they were supposed to play a central role in the nurturing
of the “baby” they had helped to deliver.
But the baby they had helped to deliver
belonged to society; it was not theirs! They were midwives that helped Cameroon
society to deliver a “baby” from its pregnancy. In a way, like all midwives,
their hour on stage had to be short and fretful. Like Marx’s proletariat that
defines his goal as its own elimination as an exploited, alienated class, the
birth of the SDF was supposed to cause the disappearance – so to say - of the
midwives from the stage.
Unfortunately, instead of vacating the
stage and allowing society to move forward the “revolution” – the “baby” - they
helped to engender, the “founding fathers” attempted to act like Marx’s
“communist” who had the theoretical advantage over the rest of the proletariat;
who had an insight into the condition, the path and the general result of the
proletarian movement. So the “founding fathers” imposed themselves as the
“selfless servants” of the truth whose conservation they sought. They assumed
that since they were “first” in the world of the SDF, they had precedence to
generating an all inclusive thought system in the party. Most had a
totalitarian view of politics and saw dissent as a betrayal; most saw
antagonistic ideas as embedded in people who must perish with the idea in them
through the famous Article 8.2!
The birth of the SDF was supposed to
become at once a result and a catalyst for the step-by-step amelioration of the
party. This was necessary since there is no preconceived or eternal form that
can define once and for all the form of society that fits society for ever, or
a form for a political party that can fit the party for ever. New ideas were
not supposed to be seen as a rupture with one’s previous political engagements;
rather, they were supposed to constitute a way of adjusting one’s goals; a way
of thinking anew the relation between ends and means. Like Marx would put it,
the human world is open to human actions because it is a creation of man.
Instead of providing the checks and
balances they thought they would provide to the SDF, the “founding fathers”
turned their “baby” into what Ngwasiri described to Nyo’Wakai in a
correspondence in 1997 as follows: “Those of you who are the Chairman’s close associates have built
him into a powerful monster and a dictator who has been trampling on democratic
ideals with impunity...The SDF is today a party without history because its
history is that of one man.”
Problem
number two: Article 8.2 and the disciplinary process.
The SDF at inception
adopted trial by jury as the means of finding guilt and punishing its members.
But the procedure had weaknesses in the four components of trial by jury –
judge, jury, prosecution, and defense. The major weaknesses were: 1) there was
no sitting "judge" (with good knowledge of the intricacies of the
rules and regulations as well as ideals of the party) to preside over the
proceedings; the president of the jury played that role!; 2) the legal advisers
(who were usually the main prosecutors) were the ones who
usually dealt with points of law that arose, not the “judge"; 3) the
prosecutors and defence counsel vote as part of the jury if they are NEC
members; 4) members of the jury usually questioned the accused as if they were
part of the prosecution; 5) prosecution and defence witnesses who were members
of the executive that was sitting as the jury participated in the decision of
the jury; 6) decisions of the jury were most of the time not based entirely on
evidence adduced from the prosecution and defence during the trial.
In jury trials, the jury is supposed to
take its decision in the absence of the accused, the "judge",
prosecution and defence counsels, and the witnesses. This was not the
case in the SDF. Further, “loss of membership” through the Article 8.2
fiat was much abused. Many people have called for its modification although the
leadership once said that if article 8.2 goes, they would go with it!
Article 8.2 can be modified as
follows:
1)
Section 8: Loss of Membership: Membership shall be lost through the following
circumstances:
2) 8.1
By death, mental and/or other incapacity resulting in loss of reason;
3) 8.2
By expulsion from the party as provided for in section 16.1.a.i;
4) 8.3
By resignation from the party as determined by a document duly signed by the
member to that effect or a bailiff, with acknowledgement of receipt.
Problem number three: Interference of NEC in decisions
of lower structures.
Checks and balances in the SDF were
supposed to be provided by a robust national executive committee (NEC), a
robust national advisory council (NAC), and the devolution of power to the
lower structures. This was subverted by the ad hoc treatment of NAC, and the
permanent interference of NEC in the affairs of the lower structures. NEC
regularly sent “NEC Commissions” to conduct elections in structures, rather
than supervise the conduct of the elections by the sub-commissions that
delegates at elective conferences put in place as provided for by the SDF
constitution. This led to abuse, demobilization, and generalize in-fighting.
Problem
number four: Leadership.
It is usually said that leadership is finding a parade
and getting in front of it. That creates the tandem of leadership and
followership. None can exist without the other, but, importantly, the parade
was there before the duo emerged. Only the leadership can fail the parade, not
the other way round; the parade was there for a purpose. In case of failure, as
is evident all around us, those who turn around and say things like
“Cameroonians are not serious,” “Cameroonians do not care,” “Cameroonians are
cowards” and others in that sense are in effect painting the picture of
inadequate leadership. There may have been parades and people who rushed
to get in front of them, not knowing that leadership is serious business!
I hope these documents and more will help in the
analysis of what is going on in the SDF today
Thank you.
