Wednesday 14 October 2026
A Critical Reflection on Leadership, Unity in Diversity, and the Institutional Foundations of Liberation
Fontem Neba, PhD
Scholar, Critic, Political and Civil Rights Advocate
Abstract
This rejoinder to Ambassador Tibor Nagy’s call for a John Garang figure in the Southern Cameroons liberation struggle examines the relationship between visionary leadership, unity in diversity, and institutional development. It argues that John Garang should be understood not only as an individual leader but also as a metaphor for the capacity to unite people across differing political orientations around a common purpose. Drawing lessons from South Sudan, the Continental Congress of the thirteen American colonies, and other liberation movements, the essay emphasizes the importance of representative institutions, accountable leadership, and organized collective action. It advocates an inclusive All Southern Cameroons Conference capable of coordinating cooperation, managing and sustaining unity, and warns against dependence on a political Messiah.
___________________________________
A Tribute to Ambassador Tibor Nagy
Ambassador Tibor Nagy deserves the appreciation of the people of Southern Cameroons for his courageous advocacy for their cause for freedom. At a time when their suffering and political aspirations have struggled to command sustained international attention, his willingness to speak out has helped keep the Southern Cameroons question alive in international discussions.
His rhetorical remarks about the need for a John Garang figure in the Southern Cameroons liberation struggle deserve serious consideration. By asking who our John Garang is, Ambassador Nagy raises a question that extends beyond the search for a charismatic leader. His metaphor invites us to examine our capacity to forge unity in diversity despite our different political orientations, strategic preferences and visions of the future. Our moral and political dilemmas in the last nine years are sufficiently instructive.
We may pursue different political objectives and disagree over leadership, strategy, negotiations and our eventual political destination. Nevertheless, these differences need not prevent us from recognizing a shared concern: the liberation and political future of our people. Unity does not require us to think uniformly, and cooperation does not require total ideological conformity.
The point I am making is that, Southern Cameroons needs both visionary leadership and an inclusive institution capable of organizing our diversity into meaningful collective action. John Garang’s experience offers lessons about leadership and political mobilization, while the Continental Congress of the thirteen American colonies and the experience of other liberation movements demonstrate the importance of collective organization. We need leaders, but we must not make our future dependent on a political Messiah especially given the character failures and decisional errors in our recent past.
1. John Garang: Leadership, Vision and Political Organization
John Garang de Mabior (1945–2005) was the founding leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and Army (SPLM/A), established in 1983 during the Second Sudanese Civil War. He developed the vision of a New Sudan, initially advocating the transformation of the Sudanese state rather than limiting his political objective to southern independence.
Garang helped establish the SPLM/A as a major political force and played a central role in negotiations that produced the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of January 2005. The agreement established a framework for power-sharing and a referendum on self-determination. Following his death in a helicopter crash in July 2005, the referendum proceeded in January 2011, and South Sudan became independent on July 9 that year.
Garang’s contribution points up the importance of political vision, organizational capacity, international engagement and negotiation. Yet his achievements were not his alone; they also depended on other political actors, negotiators and international mediators.
For Southern Cameroons, Garang’s significance should therefore extend beyond the search for an individual with comparable charisma. His name can also symbolize the capacity to articulate a common purpose and bring diverse constituencies together. The question is whether we can cultivate these qualities collectively while ensuring that leadership remains accountable.
2. John Garang as a Metaphor for Unity in Diversity
The search for a Southern Cameroons John Garang can be understood at two levels. At the individual level, it concerns the need for leaders who can inspire confidence, communicate political objectives and coordinate collective efforts. At the collective level, it raises a more fundamental question: can Southern Cameroonians work together across political differences without requiring everyone to embrace the same objectives? That was the case with John Garang. He led the movement, but his political opinion was the minority one.
Our political community contains different perspectives on the struggle, its strategy and its eventual outcome. These differences cannot simply be wished away, nor should their existence make cooperation impossible. The challenge is to distinguish between disagreements that require debate and shared interests that provide a foundation for collective action.
Unity in diversity means preserving legitimate political differences while recognizing a shared responsibility toward the future of our people. It does not require every organization to abandon its identity or every individual to surrender deeply held convictions. It requires a willingness to identify common ground, establish mutually acceptable procedures and cooperate where our interests converge.
No single individual can manufacture durable unity on behalf of an entire people. Such unity must be cultivated through mutual recognition, agreed principles and institutions that allow different voices to participate. If the John Garang metaphor is to have enduring significance for Southern Cameroons, it must represent not only exceptional leadership but also our collective capacity to forge common purpose across political divisions.
3. The Difficult Lessons from South Sudan
South Sudan’s independence did not guarantee political stability. A devastating civil war began in December 2013 amid political rivalries, unresolved grievances and institutional weaknesses. These developments do not diminish Garang’s historical contribution, nor should subsequent problems be attributed to a leader who died before independence. They nevertheless demonstrate that achieving independence and establishing stable, accountable government are separate challenges.
Southern Cameroons must therefore look beyond the identity of a future leader and consider how authority will be exercised, how disagreements will be resolved and how institutions will survive changes in leadership. A prominent individual cannot automatically eliminate internal divisions or guarantee democratic governance.
The lesson is that leadership must operate within a durable institutional framework. A leader may help bring a movement to a critical political moment, but lasting political freedom also requires accountable institutions, transparent decision-making and a political culture capable of managing differences peacefully.
4. The Continental Congress: An Institutional Alternative
During the American War of Independence, the thirteen American colonies which revolted against British control established the Continental Congress as a common political institution. It coordinated important aspects of the revolutionary effort, including diplomacy, finance and military appointments. In 1775, the Congress appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, distinguishing military command from the central political institution.
The arrangement was imperfect. The colonies had competing interests, the Congress faced serious organizational and financial difficulties, and the early American political system excluded many people from equal participation. Nevertheless, the experience illustrates how representatives can coordinate a collective struggle without requiring all participating constituencies to become identical in their interests and preferences.
The Continental Congress did not eliminate disagreements; it provided a forum in which representatives could deliberate, negotiate and make decisions. Southern Cameroons should examine this principle rather than attempt to reproduce the American system mechanically.
The American experience is not the only example of organized collective action in a struggle for freedom. Across Africa and Asia, liberation movements developed political parties, national councils and broad-based coalitions to mobilize populations and advance their aspirations.
5. Lessons from Other Liberation Movements
I have discussed these examples in a previous essay and so will only do a reminder here.
In India, the Indian National Congress became a major vehicle of the independence movement, mobilizing diverse constituencies around the end of British colonial rule. In Eritrea, the Eritrean Liberation Front and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front played central roles in the independence struggle, while divisions among liberation organizations demonstrated the importance of managing internal disagreements.
In East Timor, the National Council of Timorese Resistance helped bring together different political constituencies around the objective of ending Indonesian rule. In Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah’s Convention People’s Party mobilized mass support for independence, while South Africa’s African National Congress and broader formations such as the United Democratic Front connected political leadership with extensive networks of organizations and communities resisting apartheid.
These movements differed in their structures, strategies and historical circumstances. Their experiences should not be romanticized or copied mechanically. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that liberation struggles have often depended on organized movements, political networks and collective mobilization, rather than on one charismatic leader alone.
The lesson for Southern Cameroons is to study how these movements organized their constituencies, articulated common objectives and attempted to manage political differences. We need an institutional model suited to our own circumstances, one that allows people and organizations with different orientations to deliberate, identify shared interests and coordinate action without surrendering their convictions.
6. Turning Unity into Practice
An All Southern Cameroons Conference could provide a common platform for translating these lessons into practice. Its purpose should not be limited to identifying a leader or proclaiming unity; it should establish credible procedures for representation, deliberation, collective decision-making and accountability.
In previous discussions, I have stated that the Conference should establish transparent criteria for participation and representation, ensuring that no individual or organization automatically claims to speak for the entire people because of its visibility, resources or influence. Different perspectives must have meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions affecting the collective political future.
I have also previously stated that the Conference should recognize disagreement as a normal feature of political life. Participants may differ over political objectives, strategies and future arrangements, but these differences should be addressed through debate, mediation and agreed procedures rather than automatically interpreted as betrayal. Unity that depends on silence is fragile; cooperation grounded in honest discussion has a stronger foundation.
I also addressed issues like leadership, diplomacy and financial management, pointing clearly that they must operate under well defined mandates. Representatives should communicate agreed positions, negotiators should remain accountable to the institution, and financial contributions should be managed transparently. No individual should acquire unlimited authority because of personal popularity, military standing, wealth or international connections.
Finally, the All Southern Cameroons Conference should practise the principles it hopes to see reflected in future self-government: inclusion, accountability, respect for procedures and peaceful dispute resolution. Its success would depend not on eliminating political differences but on managing them while enabling meaningful collective action.
7. What Kind of Leadership Does Southern Cameroons Need?
The choice should not be reduced to having a John Garang figure or having no strong leadership at all. Southern Cameroons needs individuals capable of articulating a clear vision, inspiring confidence, negotiating responsibly and working across divisions. It also needs institutions that coordinate different constituencies, define mandates, manage disagreements and hold leaders accountable.
A visionary leader can help people understand a common purpose, while an inclusive institution can translate that purpose into collective decisions. Leaders should exercise initiative without making the movement dependent on their personalities, and spokespersons should communicate agreed positions rather than substitute personal opinions for collective decisions.
We must also accept that cooperation does not require agreement on every political question. Our task is to identify shared interests, clarify areas of disagreement and establish procedures through which collective action can proceed without forcing everyone to abandon their political identity.
The Way Forward
The conclusion we must draw is that Southern Cameroons should build an institution capable of uniting and guiding our leaders, both now and in the future.
Ambassador Tibor Nagy’s advocacy deserves recognition, and his call for a John Garang figure has given us an opportunity to reflect on our leadership and institutional needs. Garang’s experience demonstrates the importance of political vision, organization and negotiation, while South Sudan’s subsequent difficulties remind us that leadership and independence alone cannot guarantee stable, accountable government.
The Continental Congress and other liberation movements offer complementary lessons about organizing collective action across diverse constituencies. Southern Cameroons should examine these experiences and develop an institutional model suited to our own circumstances. An All Southern Cameroons Conference should provide a common platform through which people with different political orientations can work together to overcome the challenges of previous liberation movements.
We should welcome visionary leaders, but we must not wait for a Messiah before organizing ourselves. The responsibility for building unity cannot be delegated to one individual. For a people who have experienced our kind of oppression, making our collective future dependent on a single personality would be an especially dangerous gamble. Our political survival and future freedom require an institution capable of managing differences, sustaining cooperation and holding leaders accountable.
Southern Cameroons needs leaders who can inspire unity, institutions that can organize diversity, and a political culture that enables people with different orientations to work together toward a shared future. Let us build an institution that produces and guides effective leaders, holds them accountable and serves the people it represents. We need leadership that serves the institution, an institution that serves the people, and unity broad enough to accommodate the diversity of our political aspirations.
