From Personal Authority to Participatory Governance – Rethinking Local Leadership in Cameroon

By Dr Peter Mbile
The recent controversy among traditional chiefs in the Southwest Region reveals deep flaws in our public governance culture – and offers a timely opportunity to embrace democratic accountability and strengthen institutional legitimacy.
*A Case Study in Governance Dysfunction*
The recent dispute involving the President of the Southwest Traditional Chiefs’ Conference—who expressed his dissatisfaction with how chiefs were treated during national celebrations—and the public reprimand from his peers highlights a broader and structural problem in our governance system. It is not merely a matter of personal clashes or protocol, but a symptom of a deep dysfunction in how authority is understood and exercised, even by those expected to represent the people directly.
We must confront a troubling reality: many public officials in Cameroon, including elected representatives, have internalized the modus operandi of appointed bureaucrats. This is a critical knot that must be untied.
*Legitimacy Begins with Representation*
There remains ambiguity around the genuinely elective nature of certain roles—such as Presidents of Regional Assemblies or Traditional Chiefs’ Conferences. Regardless of whether a position is filled through election or appointment, one fundamental principle must prevail: those who speak on behalf of communities must do so through a participatory and legitimate process that reflects the will of the people.
This is not a technical formality, but the foundation of democratic leadership. Whether one is a mayor, a member of parliament, or a traditional leader, effective leadership requires regular consultations, clearly developed agendas, formal adoption of decisions, and traceable, verifiable records.
*Toward Inclusive and Accountable Leadership*
To reinforce legitimacy, community leaders must open their meetings to civil society organizations and independent observers. Reports from these meetings must be audited, and transparent Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) mechanisms should be established. This M&E should rely on three essential governance indicators:
- *Effectiveness* : Are the decisions implemented?
- *Relevance* : Are all community segments and interests represented?
- *Sustainability* : Are the actions designed for long-term impact?

Fako Chiefs participating in 20th May celebrations in Buea.
These are not bureaucratic burdens—they form the bedrock of public trust. They strengthen transparency, civic participation, and accountability.
*Democratizing Regional Governance*
At the regional level and within traditional leadership structures, this approach offers a major benefit: it protects leaders from arbitrary political pressure. When a decision emerges from a participatory process, it becomes a collective mandate rather than a personal act.
If such a process had been followed before the President of the Chiefs’ Conference published his letter, there would have been no basis for a personal reprimand. The act would have been understood as the expression of a collective position, openly debated and validated.
Any attempt to challenge such a decision would rightly be seen as interference in the sovereign functioning of a legally recognized institution.
*Process Determines Outcome*
In a country like Cameroon, where examples of enlightened leadership still emerge from time to time, what matters is not only the outcome but the process by which decisions are made. A flawed process can undermine even the best intentions. A credible process, on the other hand, confers legitimacy to any decision, even if unpopular.
Governance must not be an expression of pride or a reflex of authority. It must be conceived as an inclusive system based on participation, fairness, and accountability. Only then can we prevent serious matters concerning the dignity of communities from being reduced to petty personal quarrels.