The successive waves of independence in Africa, particularly during the 1960s, were the result of a desire for self-determination freed from all forms of foreign influence and interference. There is indeed nothing better than natives who manage their Territory themselves. Even if the quality of management can be called into question or give rise to contradictory points of view which highlight shortcomings or clear signs of failure, the fact that it is natives who are in positions of responsibility is proof of sovereignty and maturity.
But having achieved complete autonomy is not enough; we must still work for the development of the Territory through fair and equitable management of wealth which takes into account all the components of a whole who want to enjoy the same rights and the same advantages because granting favours to a people and not doing the same gesture for others is to run the risk of creating dissension between several co-wives who perhaps already have conflicting relationships. Indeed, each claim is always the consequence of a desire for demarcation which implies respect for quotas. The principle is clear: Depending on the context or the country in question, if it is the country that wins, each region must feel it in a concrete way at the local level and act locally to contribute more to the development of the Territory. Going against this principle would be interpreted as proof of injustice, favouritism or tribalism.
Those who gave their lives for the independence of Cameroon as well as those who witnessed this new status which required additional efforts to begin the construction of a Cameroonian Nation were already aware of the fact that "always and everywhere, the human groups have a singular tendency to differentiate themselves from each other”1 and that for a better joy of living together or peaceful coexistence in the future, it was necessary to begin to cultivate a nationalist spirit so as not to see the emergence of points of view totally incompatible with the idea of a Nation where everyone is called to work for the common good despite differences.
The simple enumeration of the different actors before and after independence, including the decisive episode of reunification, clearly shows that a country with ethnic plurality cannot achieve something better without the active participation not only of nationals of all cultural areas but also a mutual respect which implies the fact of recognizing the other as a full member of ourselves and with whom we are called to work for the good of the Nation thanks to transculturalism is that to say an overcoming and an acceptance of the realities inherent in each cultural context. In other words, putting the tribe at the service of a national interest and not a common or particular interest which is limited to the level of the Terroir while developing animosity or contempt towards other peoples who, like us, are part of the same Territory.
By limiting our enumeration between 1948 and 1962 and going from Ruben Um Nyobe to Ahmadou Ahidjo passing among many others like André Marie Mbida, Paul Soppo Priso, Ernest Ouandié and Jhon Ngu Foncha, we will notice that all these Cameroonians nationals of several parts of the same Territory have all worked in their own way for the good of a common interest that is still relevant today in a State keen to preserve its unity despite everything.
During the first thirty years following the independence of French Cameroon in 1960, several actions were taken to consolidate and perfect unity. From the multi-party system from 1960 to 1965, to the single party from 1966 until the return of the multi-party system in 1991, everything or almost everything was implemented for the good of the Cameroonian people in very specific contexts which required immediate measures unpleasant for some but still necessary in order to really address the problems. Indeed, “in 1958, tribal consciousness was the essential element of Cameroonian society. It can be summed up as an opposition between three ethnic complexes: that of the North (Foulbe, feudal, Muslim), that of the South (Bantu, clan, Christian) and that of the West (semi-Bantu, divided into chiefdoms, essentially Christian).»2 The establishment of a single party (Cameroonian National Union [CNU]) by force and in a particular context corresponded to a project of national construction or better national integration.
The opposition was of no use in preserving peace and national unity for the late President Ahidjo at least at that moment. But the fact that this choice belongs to a bygone era does not necessarily mean that this model can no longer be adaptable to current contexts. Depending on the person chosen by the people, the context and the goal sought by this leader, any political system is adaptable and perfectible. Indeed, just as other States and in particular a great economic power has chosen to perfect a single party over time to give to this day a very effective system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation, Cameroon has opted for democracy by leaving everyone the free choice to create their own political party.
At the beginning of the 1990s, the multiparty system returned as did freedom of association which had not existed since 1966; several former members of the single party went to create their own political groups in their regions of origin. But despite this, injustices persisted and generated uprisings and justified demands that even “the operational commands”3 created to pacify the country could not resolve. It was rather the holding of a “tripartite conference”4 before electoral votes of March and October 1992 which brought calm because it resulted at least in the satisfaction of the main parties invited given that the opposition agreed to stop ghost town and civil disobedience, and the government agreed to demilitarize areas under opposition control and among many other resolutions to set a moratorium for traders who are victims of dead towns.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/2TXAKDFYJRPL5K3UU5BP5JQOE4.jpg)
