Dibussi Tande
Term limits are an important instrument of democratization in electoral-authoritarian countries: this is not just because they constrain the power of individual leaders, but also because they tend to promote political party alternation, as in Croatia in 2000 and Kenya in 2002, which in turn fosters democratization. Gideon Maltz
Following the arrest of Yondo Black and nine others in February 1990, the Biya regime insisted that contrary to popular belief, the “Douala 10”, as they came to be known, had been arrested not because they called for the reinstitution of multipartyism, which regime officials pointed out was enshrined in the constitution, but because they had insulted the head of state. Realizing however this statement could open the floodgates of pro-multiparty advocacy in the country, the regime immediately initiated stage-managed a nationwide campaign against “precipitated multipartyism”.
At the end of the campaign, President Biya declared in a nationwide address that “the people” - and not the regime! - had “unequivocally rejected political models and formulas imported from abroad". In other words, even though the constitution allowed for multiparty politics, the Cameroonian people had rejected it as being unsuitable to Cameroonian realities.
Two years later, when the regime decided to outmaneuver the weakened and divided opposition by calling for early Presidential elections, the Biya playbook was once again put to good use. On June 27, 1992, a delegation of 15 prominent Cameroonian business magnates - practically all of whom had been financially compromised by the ghost town campaign of 1991and the violent and merciless tax recovery drive of 1992 - were dragged to Unity Palace where they “appealed” to the President to call for early presidential elections.
The very next day, the Secretary General of the CPDM Central Committee sent a confidential telex to all provincial governors asking them to work with CPDM sections to organize meeting and rallies in favor of early presidential elections and a Biya candidacy. The telex also included the draft of a “spontaneous motion of support” to be issued at the end of these rallies. On August 25, 1992, President Biya announced that as a result of demands by “the people” early elections would take place on October 11, 1992 and that he would also seek reelection.
Over the years, President Paul Biya has elevated feigned disinterest into an art form in order to create the illusion that his actions are dictated by and even imposed upon him by “the will of the people”. Thus, when he was asked during his September 2007 interview on France 24 about calls by some members of his party to eliminate presidential term limits, it was an apparently disinterested Paul Biya who declared that “I think that these questions about the 2001 elections are premature”. He nonetheless added that “I'll allow the debate take place, but for now the constitution does not allow me to run for a third term…. The people will decide what is good for them… we are listening…”. That, of course, was part of a well-orchestrated plan to set the constitutional amendment plan in motion. What followed was a flurry of motions of support, rallies and meetings by CPDM stalwarts across the country, all calling for a constitutional amendment scrapping term limits. And at the end of the process, President Biya once again “caved in” to the demands of “the people”.
The President who argued only a couple of months ago that discussions on presidential term limits were “premature” now states that these discussions are “normal and even encouraging”. The President even goes farther to argue that the current constitution is undemocratic because it limits the presidential mandate to two terms:
In fact, there are arguments for a revision, particularly of Article 6 which indeed imposes a limitation of the people’s will, a limitation which is out of tune with the very idea of democratic choice.
No longer is Paul Biya a disinterested and passive spectator in a “premature” debate over term limits. He is now the principal actor in a “normal” process which will, without doubt, culminate in a constitutional revision that will virtually make him President for life. And at the end of that stage-managed process, the President will claim that he didn’t stay on because he wanted to, but because he was virtually forced into that course of action by “the people” who begged for “continuity”. That then is Cameroonian “democracy”at its finest. And as usual, the President will most definitely get away with it mainly because Cameroonians actually tolerate and even actively participate in this politics of make-believe…
The Dance of the Absurd: President Paul Biya in his own words
Paul Biya - Paris, September 2007
The 2011 elections will definitely take place but I consider them distant. I have a seven-year mandate, half of which I have already completed. Presently, we have other priorities and the constitution does not permit me to run for a 3rd term… I think that these questions about the 2001 elections are premature... but I leave it up to those who want to launch this debate. There are some people who say that the president should take part in the [2011] elections for continuity. I'll allow the debate take place, but for now the constitution does not allow me to run for a third term. I also know that the constitution is not etched in stone. The people will decide what is good for them. So we are listening, however, I urge my compatriots to focus on more urgent tasks.
End of Year Message, December 31, 2007
Make cheap international calls from your home, work, or cell… I cannot fail to mention a problem that was raised by journalists during my recent stay in Paris and which, I am aware, has been the subject of much speculation in Cameroon for several months now. I am referring to the possible revision of our Constitution and particularly Article 6, Paragraph 2, which provides that “the President of the Republic shall be elected for a term of office of seven years renewable once”.
Even though the next presidential election is only due in 2011, it is normal and even encouraging that Cameroonians take an interest in this issue since it concerns the future of their institutions. Many calls in favor of a revision are reaching me from all our provinces. I am obviously not indifferent to them.
In fact, there are arguments for a revision, particularly of Article 6 which indeed imposes a limitation of the people’s will, a limitation which is out of tune with the very idea of democratic choice.
I want to add that in itself a constitutional revision is nothing unusual. Our present Constitution (which is itself the outcome of a revision of our Constitution of 1972) contains revision procedures which enable, if necessary, an adjustment of the text to changes in our political society. Moreover, the procedures are of a general nature and do not concern anybody in particular.
We are therefore going to reconsider, in this spirit, those provisions of our Constitution which would need to be harmonized with recent developments in our democratic system so as to meet the expectations of the vast majority of our population.
If African tyrants like Paul Biya find nothing wrong in scraping off constitutions at their pleasure,it is to a large extent the fault of the international community in general and donor nations in particular.The international community has so far done very little to support term limits in Africa and have continued backing regimes who protect their neocolonial empire.Last year,Obasanjo tried to panel beat the Federal Constitution of Nigeria to enable him run for a 3rd term.The UK and the US stood aside and played the ostrich bc of their strategic interest(oil)in Nigeria.Only when the country was threatened by civil strife that these countries started threatening bouts of diplomatic pressure on Abuja.
In Uganda,the British gov't helplessly declared that the issue of constitutional change depended on the Ugandans.
All over Africa where constitutions are used as tissue paper,donor nations who have a panoply of pressure mechanisms have been unable to help prevent this blatant abuse of power.Whereas these donor nations have an obligation to insist on African regimes that they regard presidential term limits as a core democratic institution and that any moves to the contrary is illigitimate.Through bodies like the Common Wealth,EU,UN they could issue joint declarations underlining their belief in presidential term limits and why not suspending,excluding and isolating regimes which fail to respect term limits.
Also,donor nations should put pressure on gov'ts by making presidential term limits a condition for obtaining economic aid.This can be very effective in aid_dependent countries in Sub_Saharan Africa.
Again another way is to create incentives for incumbent presidents so as to encourage them to leave power when their term expires.A president can be given the assurance of economic benefits e.g a fat pension.Also he could be provided with bodyguards,a state car,involvement in state ceremonies etc to give him/her a semblance of power.Or even the option of heading international diplomatic missions like with Abdou Diouf,Alphar Omar Konaré etc.
Last year,the first recipient of the "Mo Ibrahim prize" was Joaquim Chissano,former president of Mozambique who won a cash prize of about 5 million dollars.Sudanese_born British business magnate Mohammed Ibrahim created that cash award to encourage good governance in Africa and to encourage African leaders to leave office when their tenure comes to an end.Thus bribing incumbents to step down when their term is over should be seriously considered so as to encourage alternance.Bc most of these people cling to power bc of the economic benefits attached to their positions.
Nga Adolph,
Leuven_Belgium
Posted by: Nga Adolph | January 03, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Nga Adolph,
The issue of presidential limits rests solely on Africans themselves and NOT some foreign countries who you term neo-colonialists. Why then would you want neo-colonialists to determine the length of rule of African dictators?
It's a shame for to rests our problems and therefore destiny on another nation. Let Africans themselves, in this case Cameroonians tell Biya, GO TO THE PRIMARY SCHOOL THAT THE CHINESE BUILT FOR YOU IN YOUR VILLAGE AND BECOME HEADMASTER if you think you're still energetic enough to work!
The Son
Posted by: Akoson | January 04, 2008 at 04:06 AM
Mr Akoson,
I donot agree with u that the issue of presidential term limits in Africa should rest entirely on the shoulders of Africans.Ofcourse,it will be a great thing if we could resolve that problem by ourselves.But let's be realistic,Darfur for e.g has been raging with genocide and our AU peacekeepng troops couldn't bring peace to the area.They have recently been replaced by a UN peacekeeping force.
That said,it is no secret that much of the problems faced in pre_colonial Africa is as a result of the neo_colonial and paternalistic policies of western nations who have time honoured economic interests in Africa.They have safeguarded their interests by protecting and keeping their henchmen in power with the likes of the Paul Biya's,Omar Mbongo's,Sassou Nguessou's,Idriss Deby's,u name them.So if they are part of the problem,then they should be part of the solution.
These western nations who are mostly donor nations can use pressure mechanisms to effect considerable political change in Africa.There is a classic and an historic case of how a donor nation facilitated the advent of multipartism in Africa.
French president François Mitterand's "Le Baule Speech" in 1990 has gone down in history as the pacesetter for the advent of multipartism in French Africa.That speech coupled with the events in Eastern E'pe ignited pro_multiparty demonstrations all over French Africa which ushered in multipartism.
In that famous speech he said,"La France liéra tout ses aides économiques aux efforts qui seront faits pour aller vers plus de liberté et democratie.Dont désormais,l'aide de la France aux états Africains est subordonnée a l'avancée du processus de democratisation".Thus France made a breakaway with its policies vis a vis Africa since de Gaulle.
French economic aid was henceforth to be conditioned by the willingness of African states to open up to multipartism.African heads of states who attended that France_Afrique summit in Le Baule found this pill hard to swallow and on their return calls for multipartism hard turned into a wild frenzy.In Cameroon,the speech galvanised Cameroonians which led to the legalisation of the "Union des Population du Cameroun" UPC and the SDF.In Zaire,Mobutu had to relax his authoritarian grip on power and call for multipartism which precipitated his fall from power.Though many African tyrants resisted they had come face to face with the fact that business was never going to be the same again.
So,in effect donor nations can if they have the political will to utilise economic pressure to effect change in Africa.And this goes same for the issue of term limits.
Nga Adolph,
Leuven_Belgium
Posted by: Nga Adolph | January 04, 2008 at 07:21 AM
On another note,was thinking if donor nations under the HIPC initiative had insisted that term limits were a cornerstone of good governance which is one of the conditionalities of attaining the completion point,there is a very high possiblity that no African nation would've attained the decision or the completion point of the HIPC.Maybe countries like Senegal or Ghana would've been the exception but to imagine that Museveni's Uganda was the first African nation to cross the threshold leaves many to doubt the so much heralded commitment of donor nations to democracy in Africa.
And then this very disturbing question of whether attaining the completion point of the HIPC has brought any positive fallouts to the African masses.For almost a decade today,Ugandans are yet to see any changes in their standards of living and their purchasing power is increasingly on the decline.This is an indication that longetivity of regimes in power in Africa is the single most important cause of Africa's economic,political and social regression.If that cankerworm is eliminated then all other problems Africa is facing today will be history.Donor or western nations which have a stake in Africa know these things and that our problems aren't poverty,corruption,civil wars,famine etc.These are secondary problems which alot of money has been invested in and results aren't forthcoming.The primary problem should be tackled headfront and that is helping to weed Africa of self proclaimed monarchs wielding power in perpetuity.
Nga Adolph,
Leuven_Belgium.
Posted by: Nga Adolph | January 08, 2008 at 05:30 AM
Please, for once, we have got to shy away from this mentality of blame. How did dodnor countries get to be where they are today? They did not make thievery by leaders and non-challancy by citizens their modus operandi. Cameroonians clamour for the right to be president, but few, if any bother to discuss their platform or political agendas. Yet, we go out in droves and vote them in. We have grown so tolerant of their indiscretions, and will go to any lengths to justify our stupidity for letting them go as far as they wish. We sit on the most productive piece of real estate on the face of the earth, and it is by far, the most mismanaged property on record today. We pride ourselves as being among the most educated country in Africa, but guaging our educational prowess against constructive engagement in the running of our country, we come in dead last. Late last year, the elites of Santa made a spectacle of themselves going public and calling for another term of office for Mr. Biya. Can those buffoons come out and debate on this forum, and tell the world what is it that the Biya administration has done for Santa that pleased them so much to go public with their stupidity? Now, Biya has heard their cries and is obliging, and will get his way. Why? Because we are all spineless. We think in darkness and speak with our mouths in our ampits. Outside of the SDF, how many opposition parties have you heard utter anything on this issue?
Constitutional amendments outside of Africa are taken seriously. In the united States, they are not even initiated at the executive level of government. Its at the legislative level, and most be ratified by all the states in the federation. We don't have such legislative apparatus in place because the intent to abuse the system has always been paramount in the minds of those entrusted to design the mechanism. As soon as any apparatus is put in place, instead of scrutinizing it, we sing its praise and worship the culprits to be. No sooner had we finished singing than we are kicked to the curbside and we wake up and look for some foreign government to blame.
We complain of unemployment, yet consume alcohol in excess, making our breweries some of the most lucrative industries in the world. How can you reason when you are 80% drunk all the times?
Posted by: Che Sunday | January 09, 2008 at 08:54 PM
Please, for once, we have got to shy away from this mentality of blame. How did dodnor countries get to be where they are today? They did not make thievery by leaders and non-challancy by citizens their modus operandi. Cameroonians clamour for the right to be president, but few, if any bother to discuss their platform or political agendas. Yet, we go out in droves and vote them in. We have grown so tolerant of their indiscretions, and will go to any lengths to justify our stupidity for letting them go as far as they wish. We sit on the most productive piece of real estate on the face of the earth, and it is by far, the most mismanaged property on record today. We pride ourselves as being among the most educated country in Africa, but guaging our educational prowess against constructive engagement in the running of our country, we come in dead last. Late last year, the elites of Santa made a spectacle of themselves going public and calling for another term of office for Mr. Biya. Can those buffoons come out and debate on this forum, and tell the world what is it that the Biya administration has done for Santa that pleased them so much to go public with their stupidity? Now, Biya has heard their cries and is obliging, and will get his way. Why? Because we are all spineless. We think in darkness and speak with our mouths in our ampits. Outside of the SDF, how many opposition parties have you heard utter anything on this issue?
Constitutional amendments outside of Africa are taken seriously. In the united States, they are not even initiated at the executive level of government. Its at the legislative level, and most be ratified by all the states in the federation. We don't have such legislative apparatus in place because the intent to abuse the system has always been paramount in the minds of those entrusted to design the mechanism. As soon as any apparatus is put in place, instead of scrutinizing it, we sing its praise and worship the culprits to be. No sooner had we finished singing than we are kicked to the curbside and we wake up and look for some foreign government to blame.
We complain of unemployment, yet consume alcohol in excess, making our breweries some of the most lucrative industries in the world. How can you reason when you are 80% drunk all the times?
Posted by: Che Sunday | January 09, 2008 at 08:55 PM
Constitutional reformism or democratic hijack
On March 21 1947, the 22nd amendment to the US constitution was passed. It stated that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Since 1947 citizens of the United States of America have observed and respected this constitutional clause. Presidents after presidents have proposed bills in congress and the senate but none has thought that limiting the mandate of a president is limiting the people's choice. Constitutional amendments in themselves are not a bad thing. Jurist or students of law would say it is not the letter of the law that is bad but the spirit of the law. Changing the constitution of Cameroon has never been considered a bad idea. After all constitutional amendments are considered a progressive adaptation of laws to the realities of a situation
In 1996 Biya and his cronies thought that the LION MAN was not going to last another decade. The idea of that clause was meant to halt the political ambitions of his successors. It was not a bad idea at all. And at that time it was applauded as a real democratic milestone; a barrier to unrestricted longevity at the helm of the state. At the time the same nitwits who today started the call for the revision of article 6 (2) were there in the CPDM. They did not see it then as a limitation of the people's choice. And because they think the ESINGANG CHIEF priest has cheated death they have now realized that they have been beaten at their own game. They now see the revision of the constitution as democratic liberation. Advance democracy -a-la-BIYA.
The progression towards democratic rule in Cameroon does not depend on the whims and caprices of an old generation oligarchy, a kleptocracy, or on the benevolence of an autocrat. Still, the drive towards democratic advance cannot be achieved through a hand picked bunch of hand clapping and favour seeking parliamentarians. How many times have we heard elected officials give motions of support to the chief of state thanking him for making them mayors, municipal councilors and members of parliament? Their loyalty therefore is not for the man who voted them into office. Rather their loyalty is to the man who ensured they were elected into office even if the electorate did not vote for them.
The motor for political advancement in Cameroon lies in the people of Cameroon . It is an inherent force that has been dormant because of a natural love for peace and harmony. But for many years since the pretentious departure of the colonial masters there has been a constant poking and ruffling of the sleeping lion by self seeking politicians. For years, they have considered the calm and docility of the people as signs of fear, weakness and cowardice.
The calls for a constitutional reform in Cameroon are not designed to foster democracy. Rather they are a guise by a bunch of self seeking and self preserving individuals to pervert the course of democracy, to pervert the course of justice and avoid questioning on charges of embezzlement, mismanagement, corruption, fraud, nepotism, murders, and assassinations, Genocides, lies, election rigging etc.
Biya has specialized in the art of manipulation and blattant pretence. His claim. He purports to be acting on the will of the people when in reality his bunch of stooges and the self preserving ESSINGANG OLIGARCHY are are simply putting in motion a well rehearsed piece.
The present calls for constitutional reformism, revision or amendments are nothing short of a democratic hijack in Cameroon .
Posted by: Innocent Ndifor Mancho | January 11, 2008 at 05:39 AM