In this article, Dr Benjamin Akih, Coordinator of English Cameroon for a united Cameroon, an activist platform started in March 2017 to fight against separation of former Southern Cameroon and advocate proper devolution of political power to address Anglophone grievances, cites instances to show how Cameroon has moved from a government by the will of the people to a patrimonial state. All of this, he said, started with the transition from a federal system of government to a unitary state, culminating recently with extension of the mandates of municipal councilors and parliamentarians in a bid to eliminate competitive candidates for the 2025 presidential elections and the recent threat by the SDO of Mfoundi to expel citizens who may want to exercise their constitutional rights in the form of protests. Dr Akih calls on Cameroonians to say no to the patrimonial state by denouncing increasing arbitrary exercise of political power through arrests, manipulation of electoral calendar, and extreme actions by zealous unelected “chefs de terre”. Following is the article in its entirety:
Cameroon: Patrimonial state or government by the will of the people?
Dear brothers and sisters,
We give thanks to God Almighty for this past week and continue to stand in solidarity with those who suffer various ills, including the ills of this Biya’s government.
Government by the will of the people, in accordance with jointly established equitable laws, is the best arrangement for human freedom and creativity. In Cameroon, we find ourselves in a patrimonial state, a state governed by the arbitrary personal power of a self-imposed monarch who maintains himself in power by rigging elections and intimidating competitors. This is a product of France. Are we willing to acknowledge our situation and fight for true government by the will of the people? We must first diagnose the workings of the patrimonial state, with its pretentious “Father of the Nation”, in principle, an election thief who refuses to declare his assets and retire.
Even the worst patrimonial state today with extreme tyrannical mechanisms pretends to be a constitutional democracy; it “stages” the theatre of elections with predetermined results. To rid our nation of this patrimonial state, a philosophy of Francophone Africa with certain religious trappings, we must denounce its pretentious constitutional democratic gimmicks.
We need to recognize and denounce the alignment of state institutions and religion with the ruling party; we need to continue to denounce fraud and manipulation disguised as actions in conformity with the constitution; and we need to stop sympathizing with the tyrannical state when courageous citizens choose to voice their disapproval of the government. The success of the patrimonial state in Cameroon, that is, government by the arbitrary personal power of the president, is thanks to the existence of so-called “statologues” whose “statologie” is divorced from the concept of popular sovereignty.
1. Let us denounce the alignment of state institutions, the ruling party, and religious leaders. This is the most elaborate mechanism of control.
1.1. This trinity of forces against proper government by the will of the people is more animated now in the context of upcoming presidential elections. The ministry of territorial administration is headed by the worst partisan, least qualified, worst religious zealots ever appointed to that office. The decades of nepotism in recruitment to the military or admission to the various schools of neo-colonial administration have produced institutional leadership that instinctively understands the Catholic hegemony of the centre, south, and east. This leadership despises democracy. Their sole goal is to defend the patrimonial state.
1.2. This explains the boldness of the SDO of Mfoundi who recently threatened expulsion for citizens who may want to exercise their constitutional rights in the form of protests.
Why would a regime zealot like this SDO do that? The language of their patrimonial state prepares them for this. They call themselves chefs de terre. This confounds another problem where the modern state is overlaid with the self-ascribed sovereignty of tribes, towns, and villages. The concept of the citizen is confused with the concept of a subject of the patrimonial state.
1.3. It ought to be clear that if the people of Cameroon are deprived of a competitive presidential election or the election results are rigged, the political and economic capital ought to be immobilized by protests. These agitations of those using state institutions to defend the patrimonial state can have no bearing on this civic duty of citizens to remove Cameroon from the column of patrimonial states of Francophone Africa to a veritable constitutional democracy. Cameroon ought to be governed by the will of the people.
1.4. We must acknowledge that if Cameroon were not a patrimonial state, that is, if Cameroon were governed by the will of the people, federalism would not have been suppressed or its restoration resisted. Federalism provides a corrective mechanism against the emergence of the patrimonial state or the overlaying of the modern state with pseudo-sovereign tribes that can make citizens strangers in their own country.
1.5. We are called upon to be very vigilant. The push back attacks against the Mfoundi SDO are a beginning. More forceful rejection of the tentacles of patrimonial state is needed to ensure that the will of the people begins to count in the government of our country.
2. Let us continue to denounce as unconstitutional those actions in our constitutional history that have strengthened the patrimonial state and further weakened traces of government by the will of the people.
The sweeping powers of the president, initiated by Ahidjo’s demand for pleinspouvoirs from the territorial assembly in 1959, is the gateway to the patrimonial state. We, the people, lose our power in that configuration.
But the reunification in 1961 that led to a federal system introduced useful limitations. That federation was suppressed unconstitutionally.
2.1. We must remember that the transition from a federal system of government to a unitary state was the decision of a patrimonial state, not the will of the people. Many Anglophones instinctively grasp this; some Francophones struggle because they are indoctrinated in the patrimonial state ideology.
The 99.99% approval obtained in the constitutionally unfounded referendum remains a testament that the principle of popular sovereignty was violated. Denying to give some voters a negative ballot, changing results of negative ballots to positive ballots, intimidating those who campaign for the contrary option, etc. are clear signs that Cameroon was governed by the arbitrary and personal power of a patrimonial figure.
2.2. We must denounce as unconstitutional the practice of extending the mandates of municipal councilors and parliamentarians. This practice was born with the suppression of the federal system of government.
2.2.1. In the 1961 Federal Constitution, Article 16 states: “The Federal National Assembly, the term of which shall be five years, shall be composed of members of parliament elected by universal suffrage and direct and secret ballot in each of the federated states in the ratio of one member of parliament to 80 000 inhabitants.” As imperfect as this constitution was, it was the result of partial consultation and compromise. We find predictability and transparency in the allocation of seats to the Federal Parliament.
2.2.2. In the 1972 constitution, after the constitutional coup called referendum, patrimonial state ideologies intensify. We then had Article 12 a and b
12.a.: “The National Assembly, whose mandate shall be five years, shall be composed of 120 members of parliament elected by universal suffrage and direct and secret ballot.”
12.b.:”Through initiative of the President of the Republic, the National Assembly can extend or abridge the duration of their mandate.”
Who drafted the 1972 constitution? What role did Paul Biya, as Secretary General at the Presidency, have in it? What role did Jacques Foccart, the master of France-Afrique, have in the design of this constitution? Here we find the lack of predictability in the mandates of legislators and opacity in the assignment of the number of members of parliament by geographical zone. In the 1984 constitution, the two separate ideas in 12 a and b are combined into a simple article 12.
The same 1972 constitution removed the post of the Vice President, as a refinement of the Patrimonial State. In 1975, the post of Prime Minister was created, prompting a constitutional tweak. In 1979, the succession pattern in case of a president resigning, was changed to remove elections and involvement of the national assembly.
2.2.3. Today’s constitution, based on the 1996 and the further strengthening of monarchical powers in 2008, addresses the mandates in article 15 with many subpoints:
Article 15.1: “The National Assembly shall comprise 180 (one hundred and eighty) members elected by direct and secret universal suffrage for a five-year term of office. The number of members of the National Assembly may be modified by law.”
Article 15.2. “Each member of the National Assembly shall represent the entire Nation.”
Article 15.3. “Any imposed mandate shall be null and void.”
Article 15.4. “In case of serious crisis or where circumstances so warrant, the President the Republic may, after consultation with the President of the Constitutional Council and Bureaux of the National Assembly and the Senate, request the National Assembly to decide, by law, to extend or abridge its term of office. In this case, the election of a new Assembly shall take place not less than 40 (forty) days and not more than 120 (one hundred and twenty) days following the expiry of the extension or abridgement period.”
Strange ideas emerge from this new article but they are all designed to render the matter totally dependent on the will of the president, not the will of the people. But the reason for extending these madidates, even within this patrimonial state framework, can be questioned.
If we examined the evolution of certain traditional constitutional democratic provisions, we would find that the constitution of Cameroon progresses toward a patrimonial state, removing power from the ordinary citizen and voter, the author of sovereignty in a modern state. With respect to the elections 2025, no serious crisis nor warranting circumstances can be used to justify the extension.
2.3. If we understand the evolution of the mandates of members of parliament in our constitutional history, we will see that the progression is toward the patrimonial state, away from government by the will of the people, in a predictable manner. We must maintain that the extension of the mandates of councilors and parliamentarians is unconstitutional on the basis of the lame excuse used. But we must also condemn the constitution as a product of a continuous constitutional coup that started with the suppression of federalism.
Mr. Biya requested an extension of mandates to March 2026. After passage of the bill, he has now signed a decree setting the mandates valid till May 2026. He can request another extension without consequences. Nothing demonstrates the patrimonial nature of the state of Cameroon than this exercise of arbitrary personal power of the leader.
2.4. If we maintain that the extension is unconstitutional, then after March 2025, municipal councilors will be illegitimate. It is therefore dangerous for these illegitimate councilors to elect regional councilors in December 2025. Since the regional council elections have a fixed calendar, the only resolution of this issue ought to be organization of municipal council elections as soon as possible. Perhaps this problem can just be wished away by another display of the arbitrary personal power of the president?
Cameroon is condemned to pretend to be governed by the will of the people in order to continue to borrow money for their French-inspired luxurious lifestyles. It is our duty to speak out and call their system for what it is – a patrimonial state.
3. Let us not become accomplices of the patrimonial state; we must denounce increasing arbitrary exercise of political power through arrests, manipulation of electoral calendar, and extreme actions by zealous unelected “chefs de terre”. No major lender would continue to give money to Cameroon if we could demonstrate that it is a patrimonial state. If we could demonstrate the fusion of state institutions and the ruling party and to some extent, the main religious denomination in the centre-south-east power zone.
Let us not glorify the patrimonial state by attributing constitutional democratic qualities to its improvisations. Let us equally make it clear to lenders to Cameroon that they are engaging in the establishment of odious debts to a political party focused on continuation of the patrimonial state. We shall not be obliged to pay these partisan debts. Cameroon is NOT a constitutional democracy; it remains a patrimonial state with a vicious dictatorial machine afraid of losing power. Let us march on against this patrimonial state to our true liberation. A new constitution of a free people will liberate us from these absurdities now used to justify tyranny, incompetence, and fraud.
May God, the true Father of all, bless you and protect you from self-declared Fathers of the nation. May God bless Cameroon as we fight for the framework of a government by the will of the people. English Cameroon for a united Cameroon serving the nation since 2017.
