Renowned Expert In Conflict Resolution And Peace Building, Prof Willibroad DZE-NGWA, Asserts That Community Dialogue Cannot Resolve The Anglophone Crisis

Hear Prof DZE – NGWA:  “The Anglophone Conflict Is Not Simply A Collection Of Community Disputes.  It is A Protracted Political Conflict Rooted In Historical Grievances, Questions Of Identity And Belonging, Competing Interpretations Of Reunification, Concerns About Marginalization, Constitutional Disagreements, And Divergent Visions Of The Cameroon State”. READ THE COMPLETE & HIGHLY EDUCATIVE ARTICLE BY PROF DZE – NGWA, THE GENUINE INTELLECTUAL, INSIDE. 

COMMUNITY DIALOGUE CANNOT RESOLVE THE ANGLOPHONE CONFLICT

WHY CAMEROON NEEDS NATIONAL POLITICAL DIALOGUE

From Managing Community Grievances to Resolving a National Political Crisis

 By Professor Willibroad Dze-Ngwa, PhD

INTRODUCTION: MATCHING DIALOGUE TO THE NATURE OF THE CONFLICT

Can community dialogue resolve questions of political identity, historical marginalisation, constitutional arrangements and the distribution of political power in Cameroon?

Can discussions among traditional rulers, local administrators, religious leaders, civil society organisations and community members resolve a conflict rooted in the historical evolution and political organisation of the state?

My answer is clear: COMMUNITY DIALOGUE IS INDISPENSABLE TO PEACEBUILDING, BUT IT CANNOT, ON ITS OWN, RESOLVE THE ANGLOPHONE CONFLICT IN CAMEROON.

Community dialogue is particularly useful for addressing land disputes, chieftaincy disagreements, intercommunal tensions, resource competition, mistrust and other local grievances. It can restore communication, negotiate compromises and rebuild peaceful coexistence.

The Anglophone conflict, however, is not simply a collection of community disputes. It is a protracted political conflict rooted in historical grievances, questions of identity and belonging, competing interpretations of reunification, concerns about marginalisation, constitutional disagreements and divergent visions of the Cameroonian state.

Community dialogue can mitigate the consequences of the conflict, but addressing its underlying political causes requires a credible national political process.

COMMUNITY DIALOGUE CAN HELP COMMUNITIES LIVE PEACEFULLY WITH ONE ANOTHER. A CREDIBLE POLITICAL SETTLEMENT MUST ADDRESS THE CONTESTED TERMS ON WHICH THEY COEXIST WITHIN THE STATE.

The question is therefore not whether dialogue is necessary, but whether the dialogue taking place has the mandate, representation and authority to resolve the problem in question.

COMMUNITY CONFLICTS AND NATIONAL POLITICAL CONFLICTS

Conflicts occur at different levels and require responses appropriate to their causes.

Disputes between neighbouring communities over land may be resolved through traditional mediation, negotiation or judicial intervention. Disagreements involving traditional authorities may require discussions among community representatives, local administrators and other stakeholders.

Tensions between farmers and pastoralists, including in Menchum Division, may be addressed through negotiated access to land and water, agreed grazing arrangements and effective enforcement of existing laws.

Such conflicts are often amenable to community dialogue because their immediate causes and possible solutions can be addressed locally.

The situation differs when disputes concern constitutional authority, national identity, political representation, the structure of the state or the distribution of powers between levels of government.

These questions require political institutions, representative negotiations and, where necessary, constitutional and legal reforms.

THE NATURE OF A CONFLICT MUST DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF DIALOGUE REQUIRED TO RESOLVE IT.

A national political crisis cannot be resolved simply by multiplying community meetings.

WHAT COMMUNITY DIALOGUE CAN ACHIEVE

Community dialogue has considerable potential to support peacebuilding in Cameroon’s Northwest and Southwest Regions, where conflict has damaged relationships, displaced populations, disrupted education and livelihoods, and deepened mistrust.

It can contribute to:

• Reconciling divided families and communities.
• Resolving local land, property, chieftaincy and resource disputes.
• Supporting the safe and sustainable return or reintegration of displaced people.
• Facilitating local agreements on education, markets, farming, transportation and essential services.
• Promoting trauma healing, mutual understanding and the restoration of social relationships.
• Engaging women, young people, traditional rulers, religious leaders and civil society in peacebuilding.
• Preventing local disputes from escalating into wider violence.
• Documenting grievances and referring structural problems to regional and national institutions.
• Supporting disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programmes for eligible former combatants.
• Creating opportunities for inclusive, frank and broad-based engagement in conflict transformation.

These contributions are essential. Any sustainable political settlement must ultimately translate into improvements in people’s daily lives.

However, MANAGING THE LOCAL CONSEQUENCES OF A CONFLICT IS NOT THE SAME AS RESOLVING ITS NATIONAL POLITICAL CAUSES.

 Community dialogue may help families reconcile without settling constitutional disagreements. It may facilitate the return of displaced people without resolving questions of political representation. It may improve relationships between teachers, parents and local authorities without addressing wider disputes over educational governance.

COMMUNITY DIALOGUE IS NECESSARY, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.

THE ANGLOPHONE CONFLICT IS NOT SIMPLY A COMMUNITY CONFLICT

The Anglophone conflict must be understood within its historical and political context.

Its roots extend to the partition of German Kamerun after the First World War, the separate administration of British Southern Cameroons and French Cameroun, and the political processes that culminated in reunification in 1961.

The subsequent evolution of the state, particularly the transformation of the federal arrangement into a unitary state in 1972, remains central to competing interpretations of the Anglophone question.

For many Anglophones, the conflict concerns the protection of a distinct historical, linguistic, educational, legal and political identity. It also encompasses concerns about marginalisation, political representation, decentralisation and the distribution of state power.

The crisis has evolved into an armed confrontation involving separatist aspirations, government security operations, civilian suffering, displacement and serious humanitarian consequences.

These dimensions must be distinguished: the underlying political grievances, the competing political projects advanced by different actors, and the violence through which some have pursued their objectives.

Anglophones should not be treated as a politically homogeneous population. People in the Northwest and Southwest Regions hold different views about the conflict and Cameroon’s political future.

Nevertheless, these differences do not eliminate the need to address the underlying political questions.

Can a community meeting in Buea, Bamenda, Wum, Kumbo or Mamfe independently renegotiate the constitutional relationship between the former British Southern Cameroons and French Cameroun?

Can traditional rulers, mayors, religious leaders and local administrators, acting solely through community dialogue, determine the constitutional distribution of powers between the central government and regional institutions?

Can local peace committees negotiate binding national arrangements concerning decentralisation, linguistic rights, political representation, transitional justice and the reintegration of combatants?

These questions exceed the mandate of ordinary community dialogue. They require a political process involving stakeholders with the legitimacy and authority to negotiate national solutions.

THE NUMBER OF DIALOGUE SESSIONS MATTERS LESS THAN WHETHER THE PROCESS REACHES THE LEVEL AT WHICH THE CONTESTED ISSUES CAN ACTUALLY BE RESOLVED.

ADDRESSING THE CONSEQUENCES IS NOT THE SAME AS RESOLVING THE CAUSES

Community dialogue can help people cope with the consequences of political conflict.

A community agreement may facilitate the reopening of a school or market, encourage displaced families to return home, or restore cooperation between groups previously divided by violence.

Such achievements matter enormously. However, their sustainability depends partly on conditions beyond the community’s control.

Schools cannot remain open safely if threats persist.  Displaced families cannot return sustainably without security, livelihoods and property protection.

Reconciliation cannot be reduced to asking people to forgive one another while disregarding legitimate grievances or demands for justice.

FORGIVENESS IS A PERSONAL AND SOCIAL PROCESS; POLITICAL SETTLEMENT REQUIRES INSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS.

The two can reinforce one another, but neither automatically replaces the other.

Community dialogue must therefore be connected to a broader political peace process rather than presented as an alternative to it.

IDENTITY, MARGINALISATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Identity is connected not only to personal relationships but also to constitutional rights, language, historical memory, institutional arrangements and collective perceptions of belonging.

Community dialogue can challenge stereotypes, reduce hostility and promote mutual respect. However, where grievances concern the recognition of legal traditions, the protection of linguistic rights, political representation or the distribution of public authority, local meetings cannot provide the necessary national guarantees.

Similarly, marginalisation may be experienced locally, but its perceived causes and proposed remedies can involve public employment, national institutions, resource allocation, political representation and public administration.

Community dialogue can identify and document these concerns. Where remedies require national policy changes, legislative action or constitutional reform, the relevant institutions must take responsibility.

Inviting people to express grievances without establishing a credible pathway for addressing them risks generating frustration rather than confidence.

THE PURPOSE OF DIALOGUE IS NOT SIMPLY TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. IT MUST ALSO ESTABLISH HOW, BY WHOM AND THROUGH WHAT MECHANISMS THE ISSUES RAISED CAN BE ADDRESSED.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REQUIRE POLITICAL SOLUTIONS

The Anglophone conflict raises fundamental questions about the organisation of the Cameroonian state, including decentralisation, the special status of the Northwest and Southwest Regions, bilingualism, institutional representation and the protection of historical and cultural diversity.

There are competing views about the appropriate constitutional response.

Some advocate more effective implementation of existing decentralisation arrangements; others favour stronger regional autonomy or federalism. Separatist independence is another political objective advanced by some actors.

These positions are distinct and should not be treated as interchangeable.

A credible political process should allow relevant proposals to be examined in terms of national unity, democratic representation, security, minority rights, public administration and sustainable peace.

The objective should not be to predetermine the outcome, but to create a legitimate process through which competing positions can be discussed and a sustainable settlement pursued.

Community dialogue cannot independently make these national constitutional choices or substitute for the legal and political procedures required to implement them.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS REQUIRE CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS, AND NATIONAL POLITICAL CONFLICTS REQUIRE POLITICAL SETTLEMENTS.

THE LESSON OF CAMEROON’S 2019 MAJOR NATIONAL DIALOGUE

Cameroon’s Major National Dialogue of September–October 2019 generated recommendations on decentralisation, the special status of the Northwest and Southwest Regions, bilingualism, education, the judiciary, reconstruction, displaced populations and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration.

Subsequent institutional developments included regional assemblies, Public Independent Conciliators and arrangements associated with the special status of the two regions.

These measures form important parts of Cameroon’s response to the crisis. Nevertheless, the continued conflict raises questions about the extent to which existing initiatives have addressed the underlying political disagreements and generated confidence among affected populations.

The persistence of the conflict cannot be explained by a single factor. It involves multiple actors, competing objectives, security challenges, historical grievances and political obstacles.

However, one lesson is clear:

DIALOGUE, RECOMMENDATIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY AMOUNT TO A COMPREHENSIVE POLITICAL SETTLEMENT.

Cameroon must examine whether existing measures adequately address affected populations’ concerns, whether relevant stakeholders consider the processes legitimate, and whether implementation produces sufficient confidence.

Where fundamental disagreements remain unresolved, additional community meetings cannot independently settle them.

Community dialogue should complement national political engagement by rebuilding trust, facilitating reconciliation and supporting implementation. It should not substitute for addressing unresolved national questions.

INTERNATIONAL LESSONS: SOUTH AFRICA, NORTHERN IRELAND AND COLOMBIA

International experiences reinforce the distinction between local reconciliation and national political settlement.

SOUTH AFRICA

The transition from apartheid required national negotiations addressing political participation, constitutional arrangements and democratic governance. Community reconciliation was important, but it could not independently establish a new political order.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 emerged from negotiations involving the British and Irish governments and Northern Irish political parties. It addressed constitutional status, power-sharing, rights and political institutions. Community initiatives supported reconciliation but did not replace the negotiations required to reach a political settlement.

COLOMBIA

The 2016 peace agreement between the government and FARC-EP addressed rural reform, political participation, the transition from armed struggle and transitional justice, among other issues. Its implementation also required engagement with affected communities and institutions.

These cases are not blueprints for Cameroon. Their histories and political circumstances differ.

Their shared lesson is nevertheless relevant:

NATIONAL POLITICAL AGREEMENTS REQUIRE NEGOTIATIONS CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING STRUCTURAL QUESTIONS, WHILE THEIR IMPLEMENTATION DEPENDS PARTLY ON LOCAL PARTICIPATION AND RECONCILIATION.

WHY COMMUNITY DIALOGUE MUST NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL WILL

Community dialogue can become misleading if the number of meetings held is treated as proof that the Anglophone conflict is being resolved.

Government authorities may convene meetings, encourage traditional rulers to promote peace and support local reconciliation. Such initiatives can be valuable.

However, if fundamental political questions remain outside the scope of discussion, the conflict may persist despite extensive local engagement.

The problem is not dialogue itself, but dialogue without an adequate mandate, a credible pathway to decision-making or the political will to implement necessary reforms.

Political will requires more than declarations in support of peace. It involves recognising the seriousness of the conflict, permitting difficult questions to be discussed, creating a credible negotiating process, enabling meaningful participation and implementing agreed measures through appropriate legal and institutional mechanisms.

This responsibility does not rest on the government alone.

Relevant separatist actors and other political stakeholders must also demonstrate a willingness to engage, protect civilians, respect applicable law and consider negotiated alternatives to violence.

No party should assume that the other must make every concession before negotiations can begin.

The government has particular responsibility for using its constitutional authority to facilitate a credible political opening. Other stakeholders have responsibilities commensurate with their influence and conduct.

International partners may support mediation, confidence-building, technical assistance and implementation where appropriate.

ULTIMATELY, THE CHALLENGE IS TO MOVE FROM MANAGING THE CONFLICT TO NEGOTIATING A SUSTAINABLE POLITICAL SETTLEMENT.

WHAT SHOULD CAMEROON DO? A TWO-TRACK APPROACH

The choice is not between community dialogue and national political dialogue.

CAMEROON NEEDS BOTH, WITH CLEARLY DEFINED AND COMPLEMENTARY RESPONSIBILITIES.

TRACK ONE: COMMUNITY DIALOGUE FOR LOCAL PEACEBUILDING

Community dialogue should be strengthened across conflict-affected communities, focusing on:

• Reconciliation between divided families and communities.
• Mediation of land, chieftaincy and local resource disputes.
• Trauma healing and psychosocial support.
• Safe, voluntary and sustainable return or reintegration of displaced people, where conditions permit.
• Restoration of education, healthcare, markets and essential services.
• Prevention of recruitment into armed violence and reintegration of eligible former combatants through appropriate programmes.
• Protection of women, children, young people and other vulnerable groups.
• Promotion of mutual respect, non-discrimination and peaceful coexistence.
• Documentation and referral of grievances requiring regional or national action.
• Monitoring of local peace agreements and follow-up on unresolved issues.

These initiatives require adequate resources, trained facilitators, inclusive participation and effective monitoring.

Traditional rulers, religious leaders, women, young people, local authorities, civil society organisations and affected populations should be meaningfully involved.

TRACK TWO: NATIONAL POLITICAL DIALOGUE FOR A POLITICAL SETTLEMENT

Alongside community peacebuilding, Cameroon needs a credible national political process capable of addressing the unresolved political dimensions of the Anglophone conflict.

Its priorities should include:

1. HISTORICAL GRIEVANCES AND REUNIFICATION

Examine the historical relationship between the former British Southern Cameroons and French Cameroun, the circumstances surrounding reunification and the subsequent evolution of the state.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Examine decentralisation, federalism, regional autonomy, the existing special-status arrangements and other constitutional proposals without excluding fundamental questions in advance.

1. BILINGUALISM AND INSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY

Address the practical protection of English and French in public administration, education, the judiciary and other national institutions.

1. POLITICAL REPRESENTATION AND INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE

Assess whether existing institutions adequately accommodate regional, linguistic and cultural diversity and identify necessary reforms.

1. SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT

Address civilian protection, possible ceasefire arrangements, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, with appropriate safeguards.

1. JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION

Consider victims’ rights, detainees, missing persons, accountability, reparations and legally appropriate transitional justice arrangements.

1. DISPLACEMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION

Address safe and voluntary return, property rights, livelihoods, appropriate compensation and the reconstruction of schools, hospitals, roads and local economies.

1. DIASPORA PARTICIPATION

Establish credible channels through which diaspora representatives and other relevant stakeholders can contribute to peaceful political engagement.

1. IMPLEMENTATION AND VERIFICATION

Define responsibilities, timelines, monitoring arrangements and procedures for addressing non-compliance. Identify measures requiring legislation, constitutional procedures or administrative action.

THE PROCESS MUST BE MORE THAN A CONFERENCE. IT MUST ESTABLISH A CREDIBLE PATHWAY FROM NEGOTIATION TO IMPLEMENTATION.

NO TABOO SUBJECTS, BUT NO PREDETERMINED OUTCOME

A credible national political dialogue must allow difficult questions to be discussed, including those considered politically sensitive.

This does not mean that every demand must be accepted or that any particular constitutional outcome is inevitable. It means that proposals should be heard, examined and negotiated through a credible process.

Advocates of federalism, regional autonomy, existing decentralisation arrangements or other constitutional alternatives should be able to explain their proposals and address their implications for national unity, democratic governance and citizens’ rights.

Those defending the existing constitutional order should likewise be prepared to explain how it can adequately address the concerns raised and provide credible guarantees for peaceful coexistence.

DIALOGUE IS NOT SURRENDER. NEGOTIATION IS NOT CAPITULATION. LISTENING IS NOT AGREEMENT.

The purpose of political dialogue is to test competing positions against the requirements of justice, security, democratic legitimacy and sustainable peace.

NO TABOO SUBJECTS SHOULD MEAN NO PREDETERMINED CONCLUSION—NOT THE ABSENCE OF PRINCIPLES, SAFEGUARDS OR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

POLITICAL WILL: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN DIALOGUE AND RESOLUTION

The effectiveness of dialogue depends on the participants’ authority and willingness to translate discussion into action.

Community dialogue can identify grievances, rebuild trust and generate local agreements. Where solutions require constitutional reform, national policy changes or binding decisions by state institutions, the relevant political authorities must act.

For the Anglophone conflict, this requires a credible national process that goes beyond local consultations and addresses the fundamental issues in dispute.

Relevant Anglophone political constituencies—including non-violent advocates of different constitutional positions and credible representatives of affected populations—must have meaningful opportunities to participate.

Where armed actors are concerned, appropriate channels should facilitate engagement and a transition away from violence while protecting civilians.

No single organisation or individual should be presumed to represent every person in the Northwest and Southwest Regions. A legitimate settlement requires sufficiently broad representation, not an artificial claim of unanimity.

Participants must also have a meaningful opportunity to influence outcomes rather than merely endorse decisions already taken.

The central question is therefore not simply whether the government is willing to organise dialogue, but whether the government and other relevant stakeholders are prepared to negotiate, in good faith, the issues that must be resolved to end the conflict.

CONCLUSION: COMMUNITY RECONCILIATION REQUIRES POLITICAL COURAGE

Can community dialogue resolve questions of identity, marginalisation, constitutional arrangements and national political authority?

Community dialogue can significantly address their local manifestations, but it cannot independently resolve their national political dimensions.

It is indispensable for restoring relationships, healing trauma, preventing local disputes from escalating and rebuilding social cohesion. National political dialogue is essential when a conflict concerns constitutional arrangements, the distribution of political power, collective identities and competing visions of national belonging.

THE TWO PROCESSES MUST REINFORCE ONE ANOTHER WITHOUT BEING CONFUSED.

Cameroon must not mistake the proliferation of community meetings for progress towards a political settlement. The more important questions are whether affected people become safer, local relationships improve, grievances are addressed, political negotiations advance and agreements are implemented.

The continuing conflict should compel us to reconsider not the value of dialogue itself, but whether existing processes reach the level of the problems they are intended to resolve.

Communities cannot sustainably overcome a national political crisis simply by learning to live with its consequences. Where unresolved political disagreements sustain a conflict, its durable resolution requires a process capable of addressing those disagreements.

COMMUNITY DIALOGUE CAN REBUILD RELATIONSHIPS.

NATIONAL POLITICAL DIALOGUE MUST ADDRESS THE CONTESTED POLITICAL QUESTIONS.

POLITICAL WILL MUST TRANSLATE NEGOTIATED OUTCOMES INTO CREDIBLE AND SUSTAINED ACTION.

Cameroon needs community reconciliation, national political engagement and a genuine commitment to implementation.

The objective should not be to wait for the Anglophone conflict to die a natural death, but to create the political conditions under which violence is no longer pursued as a means of achieving political objectives and citizens can advance their aspirations peacefully.

ABOVE ALL, CAMEROON NEEDS A PEACE PROCESS THAT ADDRESSES THE CAUSES OF THE CONFLICT RATHER THAN MERELY MANAGING ITS CONSEQUENCES.

That is the distinction the country must recognise if it is to pursue a just, inclusive and sustainable peace.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Professor Willibroad Dze-Ngwa, PhD, is a Professor of Political History and International Relations, specialising in Peace and Conflict Studies, at the University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon. He is the Founding President of the Heritage Higher Institute of Peace and Development Studies (HEHIPEDS).

A pioneer in the historical study of Cameroon’s Anglophone Problem, he began researching its historical foundations in his 1996 Master’s dissertation, The Anglophone Problem in Cameroon: A Historical Perspective from 1916 to 1995. His doctoral thesis, National Unity and National Integration in Cameroon, 1961–2000: Dreams and Realities, further explored national identity, governance and postcolonial integration.

His international academic experience includes the 2010 Study of the United States Institutes programme on U.S. Politics and Political Thought at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and service as a Senior Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence at Savannah State University, Georgia, in 2011–2012, where he taught Global Issues and African Governments and Development within the International Studies curriculum.

Professor Dze-Ngwa has served as a Senior Scholar on Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) with the Global Center on Cooperative Security, a DDR consultant with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Cameroon in 2020, and Principal of the U.S. Peace Corps Model School in Cameroon.

He has also contributed to historical research on France’s role in Cameroon between 1945 and 1971 and served as Lead Researcher for the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung-sponsored project mapping conflicts and human rights abuses in Cameroon.

His research and professional interests include conflict transformation, peacebuilding, democratic governance, national integration, humanitarian action, reconciliation, peace education, human rights, violent extremism, displacement, DDR and indigenous conflict-resolution mechanisms.

Through his scholarship, international collaborations and leadership at HEHIPEDS, Professor Dze-Ngwa works to connect historical understanding with practical and policy-oriented approaches to conflict prevention, reconciliation, social cohesion and sustainable peace and development in Cameroon and across Africa.

Prof @Dze-Ngwa

#Cameroon #AnglophoneCrisis #NationalDialogue #CommunityDialogue #Peacebuilding #ConflictResolution #PoliticalDialogue #Reconciliation #SustainablePeace #PeaceAndConflictStudies #HeritageHigherInstitute