Fontem Neba, PhD
Scholar, Critic & Civil and Political Rights Advocate

27 October 2026

Abstract
The recent community dialogue hastily started by the Prime Minister is the focus of the present essay. It questions whether these consultations can deliver lasting peace without addressing the underlying political grievances of Southern Cameroons. Drawing on the 2019 Major National Dialogue, the refusal to authorise Cardinal Christian Tumi’s Anglophone General Conference (AGC), and renewed calls for a Southern Cameroons Conference, the essay interrogates the relationship between grassroots participation, political accountability, and substantive negotiations. It argues that community dialogue can reduce local tensions and rebuild trust but cannot independently resolve fundamental constitutional and political disagreements. Sustainable peace requires transparent implementation of previous commitments, accountable representation, institutional reform, and an inclusive, credible Pan Southern Cameroons conference capable of advancing meaningful negotiations towards a durable political settlement.

__________________________________

The Paradox of Delayed Peacebuilding

There is a peculiar form of political failure that deserves a name: weaponized incompetence. It occurs when those entrusted with responsibility know—or ought to know—what needs to be done but behave as though the problem is beyond their understanding. They evade difficult questions, shift responsibility, and hope that those they have failed will eventually become too exhausted to demand answers.

This concept offers a useful lens through which to examine Southern Cameroons’ political elite serving within the government and parliament of La République du Cameroun, particularly their participation in initiatives intended to engage communities in the Northwest and Southwest Regions. When political representatives are called upon to engage their constituents, the fundamental question is whether they can articulate their grievances, advocate meaningful remedies, and account for their results.

We have heard the familiar excuse: “You know we cannot discuss this issue because it will land us in trouble.” Yet political office is a responsibility, not merely a privilege. Representation without advocacy is an empty title, while participation without accountability risks becoming political theatre.

The problem extends beyond individual politicians to the design of Cameroon’s peacebuilding process, the implementation of institutional reforms, and the absence of a sufficiently credible pathway towards a durable political settlement.

The Cart Before the Horse

The community dialogue initiative launched across the Northwest and Southwest Regions in September and October 2026 deserves serious consideration. Traditional authorities, religious leaders, women, young people, civil society organisations, business operators, displaced persons, and other affected groups need meaningful opportunities to identify grievances, negotiate practical arrangements, and rebuild trust.

Yet a crucial question remains: why is Cameroon organising community dialogue seven years after the Major National Dialogue of 2019, when the national process should itself have incorporated meaningful consultations with the communities most affected by the conflict?

The Major National Dialogue was held in Yaoundé from 30 September to 4 October 2019. It considered decentralisation, the special status of the Northwest and Southwest Regions, education, justice, bilingualism, and national cohesion. Its recommendations contributed to Law No. 2019/024 of 24 December 2019, establishing the legal framework for regional and local authorities, including special-status arrangements for the two regions.

Yet neither the dialogue nor the subsequent legislation brought the conflict to an end. A genuinely participatory process should listen to affected communities, document their grievances, identify shared priorities, and establish how their concerns will influence national decisions. Although national dialogue need not always follow community consultations, a process addressing a deeply rooted political conflict must incorporate meaningful grassroots participation.

Connecting Community Dialogue to the National Dialogue

In addition to the question of sequencing lies a more important issue: how does the government intend to connect the 2026 community dialogue to the outcomes of the 2019 National Dialogue? Will the current consultations assess the implementation of earlier recommendations, continue that process, or operate as an entirely separate exercise? More importantly, what mechanisms will ensure that new recommendations influence government decisions?

If recommendations from 2019 remain incompletely implemented, what guarantees exist that the concerns raised in 2026 will receive a different response? Will the government publish an assessment of previous commitments, identify outstanding recommendations, and explain delays? Will new recommendations be incorporated into an implementation framework with defined responsibilities, timelines, and public accountability? Without clear answers to these questions, those who believe will once again be sent on a wild goose chase.

The government must also clarify how recommendations beyond the authority of local administrators will reach institutions capable of addressing them. When communities raise constitutional questions or demand negotiations over political arrangements, will their concerns be referred to a recognised negotiating mechanism, or merely recorded in administrative reports?

A dialogue process cannot be judged solely by the opportunity it gives people to speak. Its credibility depends on the response to what they say. Without a transparent connection between community recommendations, national decision-making, and measurable implementation, the initiative risks reproducing the frustration it is intended to alleviate.

Community Dialogue as the Beginning, Not the Destination

Community dialogue can facilitate civilian movement, improve access to schools and markets, reduce local tensions, and establish channels for resolving disputes before they escalate. In a conflict that has devastated livelihoods, disrupted education, and displaced families, every life protected matters. Nevertheless, managing a conflict’s consequences is not the same as resolving its causes.

Community dialogue cannot, by itself, settle disagreements over constitutional authority, regional autonomy, the distribution of political power, or the political future of Southern Cameroons. The involvement of governors, divisional officers, traditional rulers, and other representatives does not automatically make a process illegitimate. The more important questions concern its mandate, independence, inclusiveness, and accountability.

Can participants discuss the historical and political dimensions of the conflict without intimidation? Are dissenting perspectives represented, and will authorities publish substantive responses to the grievances raised? These questions are important because consultations that invite people to speak without creating credible avenues for change may deepen rather than restore public confidence.

There is also a legitimate concern that community dialogue could inadvertently—or deliberately—deflect pressure from broader political negotiations. Deliberate intent cannot be established from timing alone, but the possibility that local consultations might be presented as sufficient progress deserves scrutiny. A process should be judged by the grievances it addresses, the commitments it secures, the authority behind those commitments, and the changes communities actually experience—not by the number of meetings held or the seniority of officials chairing them.

A Pattern of Political Pre-emption?

The timing of government-led dialogue initiatives in relation to independent Southern Cameroonian political consultations raises questions about whether these initiatives complement grassroots political mobilisation or risk displacing it.

In 2019, Cardinal Christian Tumi sought government permission to convene the Anglophone General Conference (AGC), but the government refused to grant that permission. The refusal raised questions about the space available for independent political consultation at a time when the conflict demanded serious engagement with Anglophone grievances and aspirations.

This decision is relevant to the present debate. If the government promotes dialogue through its own administrative structures while refusing permission for an independently organised conference intended to facilitate broader consultation, it becomes necessary to ask why initiatives outside government control do not receive the same openness.

What principles determine which consultations are permitted, which are restricted, and whose participation is considered legitimate? A credible peacebuilding process should allow independent political consultations to contribute to resolving the conflict rather than allowing government sponsorship to become the implicit test of legitimacy.

Granted that the refusal to authorise the AGC does not, by itself, establish that the subsequent Major National Dialogue was not designed to obstruct independent political mobilisation. Or that the 2026 community dialogue was not intended to pre-empt a new Southern Cameroons Conference. How does the government explain these coincidences beginning in 2019?

As calls for a new Southern Cameroons Conference gain renewed attention in 2026, the introduction of government-led community dialogue definitely invites scrutiny. The essential question is whether each initiative expands the space for meaningful political engagement or postpones the difficult conversations needed to reach a peaceful settlement.

Community dialogue and a broader political conference address different but complementary needs. The former can help communities restore trust and improve immediate circumstances; the latter could examine underlying grievances, political authority, and institutional arrangements. The danger arises when the government tries to present one as a sufficient answer to demands for the other.

Political Representation as a Trust

Political representation is a moral relationship between those entrusted with authority and the people in whose name that authority is exercised. In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau explored the relationship between political authority and the collective will of the people. Although his theory cannot simply be applied to contemporary Cameroon, it raises a relevant question: how can political authority claim legitimacy when those subject to it believe their fundamental concerns are not adequately represented?

Southern Cameroonian representatives serving within Cameroon’s government and parliament may have opportunities to advocate reforms, influence policy, and raise their constituents’ concerns. Their efforts may also be constrained by party discipline, institutional hierarchies, constitutional arrangements, and political pressures. Such constraints deserve acknowledgement, but they make transparency and accountability more necessary, not less.

A representative who cannot secure reform should explain what was attempted, what obstacles were encountered, and what alternatives remain available. Those who disagree with particular political aspirations should state their positions honestly rather than conceal them behind vague assurances. The moral failure begins when the appearance of representation is maintained while the substance of responsibility is abandoned.

This is where weaponized incompetence acquires its political significance. When individuals knowingly evade responsibilities while retaining the privileges associated with public office, incompetence becomes a means of avoiding accountability.

Persistent silence, particularly when representatives have undertaken to advocate specific reforms, can undermine public confidence. Where officials fail to explain their actions or constraints, they create conditions in which suspicion of political abandonment becomes increasingly difficult to dispel.

Such suspicion should not automatically be treated as proof of deliberate betrayal. Representatives may face institutional constraints, political pressure, or limitations on their authority. Nevertheless, they remain responsible for communicating honestly with the people they claim to represent. They should explain their efforts, obstacles, results, and remaining options.

People have the right to question their leaders when they remain silent or fail to act. However, suspicion alone does not prove that a leader has deliberately avoided responsibility. Such a conclusion must be supported by clear evidence of their actions or inaction. Leaders can build public trust by being transparent, explaining their decisions, acknowledging their limitations, and being honest about both their achievements and failures.

Why a New Southern Cameroons Conference is important

A new Southern Cameroons Conference should complement everything that has been going on, by discussing and taking a stand on substantive issues. The refusal to grant Cardinal Christian Tumi was denied the opportunity in 2019. However, a credible peace process must allow affected communities to articulate their aspirations through diverse channels, not only forums organised or controlled by the government.

Such a conference should address the historical roots of the conflict, the distribution and exercise of political authority, institutional guarantees, accountability, security, and possible frameworks for a durable settlement. It must establish a credible pathway from consultation to negotiation, from negotiation to agreement, and from agreement to implementation.

This requires inclusive representation, a clear negotiating mandate, realistic timelines, monitoring mechanisms, and clarity about how relevant authorities and stakeholders will engage with the outcomes.

The tragedy of institutional failure is that it transfers the burden onto the people institutions are supposed to serve. When dialogue produces no meaningful response and representatives fail to explain their actions, frustration deepens and public confidence erodes.

Persistent grievances do not automatically justify violence, and frustration does not excuse attacks on civilians. Nevertheless, authorities should not assume that people will abandon political demands simply because they have become exhausted. Exhaustion is not reconciliation, silence is not consent, and temporary calm is not proof of lasting peace.

Conclusion

Community dialogue can mitigate the effects of conflict – save lives, reduce local tensions, and rebuild trust, but it cannot independently resolve the conflict’s underlying political disagreements. Its legitimacy and effectiveness depend partly on whether community priorities inform an inclusive and credible process of substantive political negotiation.

The government must explain how the recommendations of the 2026 consultations will connect to the 2019 National Dialogue and influence actual decisions and how everything put together will resolve the conflict in a sustainable way.

The philosophical foundation of this essay is straightforward: political authority is a trust, not merely a possession. From Rousseau’s concern with legitimate authority to the broader principle that public power should serve the common good, political institutions must be judged by whether they respond to the people whose lives they govern. Representatives, accordingly, must account for their actions, acknowledge their constraints, and demonstrate that their positions serve a purpose beyond personal or institutional preservation.

Southern Cameroons needs more than dialogue that manages discontent. It needs meaningful institutional reform, accountable representation, and a credible process for negotiating a lasting peace. History will judge today’s representatives not by the positions they occupied, but by what they did—or failed to do—with the responsibility those positions entrusted to them.

The Southern Cameroons movement, for its part, would be making a grave strategic blunder if it fails to conduct its own consultations to develop a clear, representative, and well-informed position for future negotiations. The world is now waiting to see; they have heard enough.