why we must not fight!
By Dr. Peter N. Mbile
Dr Peter Mbile
It is often said, half in jest, half in resignation, that “if you claim to understand Cameroon, then you have understood nothing.”
That aphorism captures the paradox of a nation whose very identity is woven out of contradictions.
Cameroon sits at the heart of the Congo–Cameroon–Nigeria–Chad–Sudan belt, one of the most racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse corridors on earth and of the continent.
It is here that Africa’s most entangled stories of migration, conquest, colonization, and resilience converge.
To appreciate Cameroonian politics without this context is to risk distortion.
Context is not decoration; it is the lens that makes sense of the nation’s tensions and possibilities.
And in Cameroon, the layers of context are especially thick.
A microcosm of a Continent
Cameroon is rightly described as “Africa in Miniature.”
Few countries, even on this vast continent, encapsulate so much ecological, cultural, and political variety within a relatively modest population of thirty million.
The land stretches from the lush Lower Guinea Ecosystem, adjacent to the coastal forests and plains, bordering the Congo dense forests and around to the Savannahs and the arid Sudano-Sahel.
Each ecological zone has nurtured its own livelihoods, its own rhythms, even organizational character and its own expectations of governance.
Overlaying this ecological variety is staggering cultural diversity.
Cameroon ranks among Africa’s top three in ethnic heterogeneity, with some 250 ethnic groups.
From the Grassfields’ chieftaincies to the Fulani lamidats; from complex, coastal fisher folk, to acephalous forest-dwelling communities, political behavior is rooted in traditions and identity that long predate the modern state.
Language compounds this complexity.
Cameroon is one of only two countries in the world where English and French, two major global languages, coexist officially, each superimposed on hundreds of indigenous tongues.
The linguistic fracture is not cosmetic; it reflects two different legal, educational, and administrative systems.
The French Jacobin state model, centralizing and assimilationist, cohabits uneasily with the Anglo-Saxon legacy of pluralism and decentralization.
Both were laid atop the older German colonial imprint, leaving a palimpsest of systems that rarely align.
Why context matters
To understand politics in such a setting, context is not optional, it is the essence.
Every political debate, from resource allocation to education reform, is mediated by these layers of history, geography, and identity.
A call for Federalism, for instance, cannot be read only as a constitutional demand; it must be interpreted against common understanding, and the memory of reunification; the erosion of autonomy, and the bitter experience of marginalization.
Similarly, the persistence of patronage politics cannot simply be condemned as corruption; it also reflects the enduring pull of kinship, reciprocity, and survival strategies in a society where the state has often been absent or extractive.
The famous Cameroonian quip about “understanding nothing” is less a confession of ignorance than a recognition of complexity.
Politics here is not linear. It is a balancing act of competing contexts, ecological, cultural, historical, linguistic; that resist easy synthesis.
The dilemma of political models, Eastern versus Western?.
This contextual richness makes the choice of political system a deeply consequential question.
Should Cameroon embrace a reformed national party system that seeks to transcend divisions, or should it deepen multiparty competition as a route to representation?
Both options carry promise and peril.
The case for a national party (Eastern) model rests on the need for unity in diversity.
A single, inclusive party, reformed from within, could potentially act as a vessel for a shared national vision, transcending ethnic and linguistic fault lines.
In a country where identity politics so easily fragments discourse, the centripetal pull of a unifying platform could reduce polarization and create the coherence needed for long-term economic planning.
Moreover, Cameroon’s regional environment, bordering fragile states makes stability more than a luxury; it is a survival imperative.
The argument against is equally compelling. National party dominance risks entrenching authoritarianism and suppressing legitimate dissent.
Cameroonians have lived under single-party dominance for decades, and the experience has too often meant inertia, patronage, and lack of accountability.
Without robust checks and balances, a national party could suffocate the very diversity that defines Cameroon, leaving minority voices unheard and grievances unaddressed.
On the other hand, the case for multiparty competition (Western) is that it allows Cameroon’s staggering pluralism to find expression.
With 250 ethnic groups and two official languages, it is unrealistic to expect a single structure to capture the full breadth of aspirations.
Multiparty politics could channel competing visions into healthy contestation, allowing citizens to choose and change governments peacefully.
It could also serve as a pressure valve, reducing the temptation to resort to violent protest.
Yet the risk of multipartyism in Cameroon is also fragmentation without progress.
History shows that multiparty politics here has often meant ethnic parties, opportunistic alliances, and endless competition without a common vision for development.
In a society already burdened by division, a cacophony of parties could amplify centrifugal forces, making coherent national policy even more elusive.
Toward a way forward
Cameroon’s challenge, then, is not simply choosing between a national party reform and multiparty pluralism.
The deeper challenge is to craft a political system that takes context seriously;_
one that acknowledges diversity without being trapped by it, and one that builds unity without imposing uniformity.
That requires institutional imagination. It may mean strengthening decentralization/devolution/Federalism, to allow ecological and cultural regions more autonomy, while simultaneously fostering national institutions that emphasize merit, inclusion, and shared goals.
It may mean a hybrid approach: a dominant but reformed party balanced by credible opposition and empowered local governance.
Above all, it requires honesty; recognizing that neither national party dominance nor multiparty proliferation, in isolation, can deliver democracy or development.
Cameroon’s complexity is not a curse; it is a resource. Its ecological diversity, cultural richness, and linguistic plurality could be the foundations of resilience and innovation.
But without political institutions that fit this context, these strengths risk turning into perpetual fault lines.
As Cameroonians debate their future in this season of heightened political contestation, they would do well to remember: democracy is not an imported model but a lived practice.
It must be built from the soil of Cameroon’s realities, not from borrowed templates.
Only then can the country move from being a puzzle no one claims to understand to being a nation that understands itself.
