Cameroon: Dancing forward and backward with decentralisation

Cameroon: Dancing forward and backward with decentralisation

On Wednesday November 12, 2008, President Paul Biya signed a decree dividing Cameroon into regions and thereby replacing the hitherto provinces. This was the application of the 1996 constitution as it had been clearly stated therein. Effectively applying the regions stuff implies, Cameroon will join the ranks of Nigeria, USA, Russia etc which have various states, and regions which are like autonomous, though with a Central / Federal government. But that is not the kind of federation Cameroonians really want.

The decentralisation stuff in Cameroon is a complete farce. It is a non-starter despite the noise being made by the public media in Cameroon to laud the initiative of president Biya. Though it is enshrined in it that people will elect councils which will govern the region, it is not known when that can ever begin. More disturbing, in a country where presidential decrees take precedence over the law or constitution, hoping for veritable decentralisation in Cameroon is still long.

Article 56 of the 1996 Constitution of Cameroon and in relation to the regions states that;

: (1) The State shall transfer to Regions, under conditions laid down by law,

jurisdiction in areas necessary for their economic, social, health, educational, cultural and sports development.

(2) The law shall define:

- The sharing of powers between the State and the Regions in the areas of

competence so transferred;

- The resources of Regions;

- The land and property of each Region.

The effectiveness of regions implicitly gives more power to regions, making them autonomous. On the other hand, the head of state according to the constitution, can still overrule a region as he can dissolve a regional council Article 59 of the constitution states this.

In article 58, it is made clear that the president shall be represented in every region by an appointee who, according to the law, protects national interest…..

Article 58 :( 1) A delegate, appointed by the President of the Republic, shall represent the State in the Region. In this capacity, he shall be responsible for national interests, administrative control, ensuring compliance with laws and regulations, as well as maintaining law and order. He shall, under the authority of the Government, supervise and co-ordinate civil State services in the Region.

(2) He shall exercise the supervisory authority of the State over the Region.

What kind of decentralisation is expected in a country where in councils/municipalities are not managed by the elected mayors and the councillors, but, by appointed sycophants called government delegates who have virtually nothing to render to electorate than their political master.

How are these so-called regions really different from the present status quo of the various provinces? Appointed governors, surrogates Divisional and sub divisional officers etc. This is no form of decentralisation. If Mr Biya and his cohorts who have taken the country hostage want to decentralise, let them come up with a veritable federation. All provinces or call them regions should be autonomous with a central federal body. It is more of a mere change of name and no real issue will happen in PRACTISE. When people clamoured for a veritable independent electoral Commission, The New Deal regime came up with National Elections Observatory I and II and more recently Elections Cameroon, Elecam whose members are yet to be handpicked by the President.

Initially, it moved from NEO I and II and soon, ELECAM but nothing has changed, as, the organisation of elections and proclamation of result remains the prerogative of appointed SDO who rigged for appointments and promotion.

Inasmuch as free and transparent elections are not held in Cameroon, the issue of regions or decentralisation will still remain a farce. True decentralisation is allowing people to freely choose their leaders and the kind of government they want. Not necessarily shadow democracy practised in Cameroon with the support of some western neo colonial governments.

Agendia Aloysius www.agendiaaloysius .blogspot. com www.lebialem. com

Obama, abortion and priestly overzealousness

When I read an article published by Associated Press and dated November, 13, 2008 with the title SC Priest: NO Communion for Obama supporters, I was really embarrassed by the priest stands and choice of words.

I do not understand why a man who calls himself, a “man of God” has the audacity to suggest that that those who voted for Obama as president of the USA should not be given Holy Communion for as he posits, Obama supports abortion, hence those who support him “"constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." As if those who supported his adversary are free of cooperation from more intrinsic evil either.

The South Carolina priest, Jay Scott Newman, of Saint Mary Catholic Church, Greenville, according to the article, emphasized that such voters who take communion without penance are putting their soul at risk.

The truth is that, those who respect the virtue of life will certainly never kill through abortion. Abortion is in itself evil, but under what circumstances can abortion be committed? That is subject to another debate. In my opinion, in any case where the foetus is a threat to the life of the mother it can be dealt away with. That notwithstanding, abortion should not be a choice given that if partners choose not to have children they should not even have it before deciding to deal away with it. Obama looses points here

Many others who are against abortion have killed millions of lives in other ways which can as well be worst than abortion because in my own thinking, inasmuch as I value the life of an unborn child, killing a person already alive on earth is more dangerous than a person yet to be born.

The statement of the clergy, though not totally wrong, can be considered extreme and in this particular context, it can be considered outrageous because it has political undertones.

My worry is why has this priest been so quiet as people die in thousands every day because of "irrational" wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, racially imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, exploitative and neo colonially funded war and confusion in Democratic Republic of Congo, injustice in the Middle East etc. I wonder why it is now he wants to advocate for the rights and privileges of the unborn when he has never done for the millions alive but suffering from injustice caused by fellow humans.

Rev Newman wrote “"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation. "

The election of Barack Obama as the 44 and first African American president of the most powerful nation on earth was testimony of the fact that the racial divide, at least, in the domains of politics in the USA, is being gradually bridged. If Obama could genuinely win an election in a country whose past is entangled with lots of horrible racial stories and whose minority/coloured or African American population constitutes less than 15 percent of the 250 million Americans, it was therefore a good testimony.

For “men of God” to make such statements in public is therefore tantamount to preaching hatred. If Obama is a hundred percent for abortion, can the clergy contest the fact that some of those who are anti abortion have not directly or indirectly killed millions of born and unborn children through other means? It can be argued therefore that his teaching in this situation, was not based on moral grounds as that of a man of God should be, but, on more of political and racial grounds.

The choice of words of the priest describing Obama as “radical”, though this is part of freedom of expression which is an integral part of US life, it is to say the least, unexpected of a priest who is ought to be subtle in his ways. His insistence on using Hussein as the middle name of Obama equally has a negative connotation of the priest’s real intentions.

According to the newspaper report, 54 percent of US Catholics voted for Obama therefore implying that, 54 percent of US Catholics should be deprived of the HOLY communion. The above average vote for Obama by US Catholics also attests to the fact that some Christians do go to church but may not necessarily follow the teaching of priests, some of whom across the world, have become as bad examples as evil itself.

I personally stand against abortion. When priests mingle with politics not because they want to distinguish right from wrong or good from bad but, because, they want political gains to go on the other side of the coin, then, there is a big problem. Can this not be considered hypocrisy?

Agendia Aloysius www.agendiaaloysius.blogspot.com www.lebialem.com