Book Review: Ewumbue-Monono’s Blueprint for Political Revival in Fako Division

Reviewed by Dibussi Tande

Ewumbue-Monono, Churchill. 2001. Indigenous minorities and the future of good governance in Cameroon: an inquiry into the politics of local governance in the local councils of Fako Division, 1866-2001. Buea, Cameroon: Center for Research on Democracy and Development in Africa. 345 pages (5000 francs CFA).

I had the opportunity this weekend to finally read Churchill Monono’s seminal book, Indigenous minorities and the future of good governance in Cameroon: an inquiry into the politics of local governance in the local councils of Fako Division, 1866-2001. It is, without doubt, the most comprehensive and most detailed book ever written on the political history of Fako division. Not only does it give a detailed chronology of local politics in Fako in the past century - with a detailed list of all councilors in Fako since 1935 - it also tackles head-on, the native-settler problem which has bedeviled ethnic relations and politics in the division for close to a century – a problem which now manifests itself at national level as the Northwest / Southwest problem.

Ewumbue-Monono painstakingly explains how the political dynamics of native - settler relations in Fako division during the Southern Cameroons and West Cameroon eras has ultimately shaped the present-day political perceptions and actions in Fako division; today’s political clashes between the CPDM and the SDF, with the underlying disagreements over the levels of native-settler representation in local political institutions, are merely a new chapter in a decades-long battle for the control of local councils and local resources in Fako.

Using rare archival material from the national archives in Buea and other primary sources, Ewumbue-Monono demonstrates how various governments, from the British colonialists to the Biya regime, have either helped to attenuate or worsen the marginalization of Fako indigenes within the Fako political system. The British tried to control the problem by giving special protection to the indigenous population; the Foncha government accentuated the problem by actively promoting settler domination with its policy of “Nativization” of settlers; the more moderate Jua government tried to mitigate the problem by reversing some of the radical polices of the Foncha government; the one-party system helped control the problem thanks to a certain measure of party discipline and consensus; and multiparty politics burst the lid wide open as the SDF and CPDM battled for political – and ethnic - supremacy in the division.

Although Ewumbwe-Monono convincingly demonstrates that the settler political machine has tried to use its numbers and solid ethnic organization to dominate local politics in Fako, he is also crystal clear in his contention that the political marginalization of Fako natives in Fako division is largely due to the failures of the Fako elite to live up to their historic responsibility. According to the author, the Fako elite are more concerned with personal and class/bourgeois interests rather than with the general interest of the people of Fako. As a result, they have always dealt with political challenges in dispersed ranks. And, when it has suited their narrow interests, the elite have not hesitated to team up with the maligned settler ethnic lobbies to sideline other Fako natives whom they see as threats to their political aspirations. Because of this war of attrition, the number of Fako natives with national political profiles has whittled down considerably.

In the last chapter of the book, Ewumbue-Monono’s proposes a series of solutions aimed at giving indigenous minorities adequate protection and representation in Fako division. These range from the institution of quotas in local councils to the territorial reorganization of Fako councils and the creation of a list-ward system. It should be noted that most of the recommendations that give special protection to the indigenous minorities are at odds with what a number of scholars on Cameroon have proposed. In fact, most of these scholars have argued that the inclusion of minority protection clauses in the 1996 constitution set the stage for the stranger-native dichotomy in Cameroonian politics in the 1990s (Geschiere, Nyamnjoh, etc.) These scholars are proponents of the one-man-one vote democratic system where the majority always carries the vote.

However, after reading Ewumbue-Monono’s book, it is impossible not to hold the view that majority rule without some sort of minority protection is a subversion of the very democracy that majority rule is supposed to incarnate. Also, this work clearly shows that the native-settler problem, particularly in present-day Southwest province, is not a recent phenomenon but one that is as old as Southern Cameroons itself.

Unlike many other books and articles dealing with the issue of indigenous minorities in Cameroon, this is not an invective-filled, emotional “anti-graffi” rant. Ewumbue-Monono has produced a well-researched scholarly work where even the most controversial data speaks clearly to the issue and steers clear of ad hominem attacks and ethnic baiting.

This book is not just about “local” Fako politics. It is about the broader issue of political representation in a democratic polity; it is about that perennial conflict between majority rule and minority rights; it is about the age-old question of who is a native of a particular region; and it also about the reasons behind the continued dominance of the CPDM in those areas of Fako division where the native population is still in the majority and the SDF’s dominance in areas with a settler majority.

All of these issues will once again burst to the surface of the local and national political scene as municipal and legislative elections take place in the coming months. This book is therefore a must-read for anyone even remotely interested in the politics of Fako division and in the internal dynamics of Cameroon’s democratization process in general.  It is an even greater asset to those individuals who intend to run for office in Fako division.

Churchill Ewumbwe-Monono is also the author of MEN OF COURAGE: The Participation of Independent and Civil Society Candidates in the Electoral Process in Cameroon. A Historical Perspective, 1945-2004. Limbe, Cameroon; Design House, 2006. 237 pages.

Comments

[Kange williams wasaloko]

I do share the same view that churchill's book narates and best describe the politial fortune of Fako division in the last decades. From a closer look at the book there is the clear view that the politics of fako division was controlled by the small Mokunda mafia that spent time puting foreign forces against their indigin brothers. A typical example is the case of Tiko subdivision.The political mentor for Fako at the time blessed the candidate of illitrate buisness magnate Paul Sinjo against his brother Ngeka luma for the post of mayor of tiko.The result is very catastrophic today. Paul singe grabbed all the land for himself and his brothers and converted Tiko into a no mans land.The original indigens of Tiko have now become strangers. Another example was late Beto who was one time UPC parliamentarin for Tiko.
He took the whole division by surprise when on crtv. he requested the state to create a Bassa province.
The question i ask is why are people always looking for stranger representation in councils in fako division only.Are they not settlers in other provinces? I will want to challenge any body to give me the name of a constituency out of southwest province that has just10%stranger representation. Without wasting your time there is none.The present council list for the Buea municipality has more than fifty percent stranger representation. Is fako division already on sale?