The majority view prevails that the higher institutions of learning have sown most of the great ideas that have sought to liberate mankind from the tyranny of those in power. But no master in the art of revolution or liberation can say with certainty that the maturation and implementation of those ideals took place in the schools. Those are the inherent weaknesses of student movements. They can sow, but they can never nurture and harvest. Time constraints, the artificially of the student environment and the temporality of the student society, act as inherent limitations to attempts by various student movements to nurture and implement their ideals.
The student movement of the University of Yaounde, alias Parlement, in 1990-1991, could not overcome those inherent weaknesses like other student movements elsewhere in the world. Parlement’s open embrace of the quest for multi-party democracy in Cameroon that 1990 was expected of a progressive movement cognizant of the worldwide wind of change generated by Mikhail Sergeivich Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika. Parlement rejected the French-imposed system because of its inhuman, corrupt, discriminatory, oppressive, ethno-centric and unrepresentative nature. The movement’s rhetoric gave it a revolutionary outlook, especially in its call for total, complete and immediate change of the inhuman system under the stewardship of the Paul Biya regime. But we never went beyond to propose an alternative system to replace it. Nevertheless, that failure is accepted as a convention in student movements, the final limitation of student bodies. All the same, the Cameroonian people expected Parlement to create a bridge to the general society through which they could convey their sown and growing ideas to the broader society whose interest Parlement also stood for. The Student Movement did not create that bridge. Yet, we cannot afford not to blame ourselves for failing in that regard.
The student movement failed horribly in creating a bridge to link itself to the masses. Cameroonians still remember April 02, 1991, hardly a year after the May 26, 1990 march in Bamenda, which forced the bloodstained Biya regime to accept multi-party politics in Cameroon. I remember it too as the first time in the history of the University of Yaounde, when the students went beyond the confines of seeking only their interest within the anachronistic university and the system (handouts of allowances, food, impotent certificates and jobs), and launched the first series of protest marches that marked the third phase of the Cameroon struggle. Not only did Parlement demand that the regime convene a Sovereign National Conference as advocated by the vast majority of the Cameroonian people, it also openly rejected:
· The inhuman French-imposed system.
· Our dehumanized mentality and values that the system had shaped.
· the overbearing French control that was suffocating the nation.
· And above all, Parlement called for a fundamental change in Cameroon’s institutions of learning, especially the higher ones.
To the foresighted, such far-reaching or revolutionary demands had to be realized within a short while for Parlement to be spared the journey into oblivion through its own failures. That short or limited time frame could not exceed three-years―the average time of a student’s stay in the university. We were already into our second year in 1991 when Parlement went beyond its confines by calling for far-reaching socio-economic-academic and political changes. By taking that position, Parlement basically gave itself two options only:
· Stay steadfast in order to realize those far-reaching revolutionary objectives that would open the road to a New Cameroon.
· Or surrender to the system and the Biya regime if the fight becomes hard and merciless.
The popular student movement did not:
· Secure the realization of a Sovereign National Conference that was a popular demand in Cameroon at the time.
· set in motion the destruction of the inhuman French-imposed system and the retrogressive mentality and values prevailing in the country.
· Hold down the Biya regime in a struggle of attrition that would have guaranteed a fundamental reformation of Cameroon’s institutions of learning.
· And above all, Parlement has contributed little in the difficult path to realize the New Cameroon.
Drawing from those failures, the history of tomorrow may have no place for us because we failed in being a positive part of the history being made today.
It has been reflected upon with clarity that our student movement put on a revolutionary garment, which was justifiable when considering the purpose of its creation. The Student Movement became revolutionary when:
· It called for a complete overhaul of our system of education by demanding that it be replaced by an educational system that is compatible with other contemporary advanced educational systems of the world.
· It rejected all the values of the present system under the Biya regime.
· It boldly demanded a complete Cameroonian say in Cameroonian affairs, which is an embodiment of the people’s independence, right, freedom and liberty.
To succeed in its revolutionary path, the student movement was expected to match its revolutionary rhetoric with the appropriate revolutionary actions. We did not do that. That fatal failure was our suicide. And even that was seen coming. That failure could have been averted had Parlement discarded its amateurism and committed itself to revolutionary methods―procedures that are in defense of what is right despite the expected deprivations for its advocates.
1) Firstly, the student demonstrations that began on April 02, 1991 lacked proper planning and an effective direction. The failure of Parlement to extend cooperation beyond the university bounds to the populations of Yaounde and beyond, and even to other student bodies in the Secondary, Technical, Commercial and High Schools marked the beginning of its march towards its doom. The outcome of Parliament’s lonely path was the failure of the protest marches in exerting pressure on the Biya regime to force it to budge in its obstinate stand against democratic change, which the student body organized in Yaoundé and even in the provinces during the University Students’ two month sojourn in the dark,. Parlement’s limited population and influence could not stir the society and government towards the all-embracing junction of change that would have led to the New Cameroon. As a result, Parlement only disrupted without acquiring the strength to change the system (permit me to applaud Franklyn Sone Bayen and Derek Ebenezer Akwanga, the only High School student leaders who with their able lieutenants successfully stirred the student populations in Mamfe and Limbe respectively to protest in the streets without direct cooperation from Parlement and despite the heavy intimidating presence of the armed forces). Parlement’s shortcoming of disrupting without acquiring the strength to change the system, made it to acquire a romantic outfit while retaining its revolutionary tone.
2) The second reason for Parlement’s failure was its poor organization, which gave it an Anarchists outlook despite its advanced and humanizing intentions. This was due to:
· The absence of an effective publicity or propaganda body.
· the failure to conduct a thorough pry or research to come out with statistics on Parlement’s strengths, the opportunities the current state of affairs offered, the weaknesses of the system and the extent it could go to cling onto power.
· The limited effort Parlement made to create sub-branches in the provinces and even within the student grounds in Yaoundé.
· poor communication that bogged down the free flow of information and opinions between the general student body and the leadership, resulting in distrust and the lack of cohesion;
3) The leadership in particular got drunk from militant rhetoric without fully harnessing the potentials of the student movement for militant actions to realize its objectives. The militant rhetoric instead misled Parlement to overestimate its strength. Our militant rhetoric unfortunately only helped to unite and prepare the Biya regime for an onslaught against us. And they finally unleashed their full force when we were least prepared. The students could do little to resist the regime’s aggression by its armed forces on the heavily crowded Parlement grounds in Bonamoussadi-Yaoundé that memorable day of May 06, 1991. Even so, the leadership’s militant rhetoric was necessary at the initial stage of the struggle to stir up the students for the demanding task of confronting and defeating the Biya regime and the anachronistic system it was defending. However, the leadership should have moved on to the second and more demanding and realistic part of the task―that involves organization, formulation, and implementation. The fact that the militant rhetoric prevailed throughout tempts critics to believe that the leadership was either for fame and glory or that they had not fully mastered the true purpose of a student movement in a revolutionary situation that also involves addressing the demands of the Cameroonian masses. Today, we are portraying ourselves as a spent force that has discarded its militancy since we became a part of the general society. Yet, a majority of us are still living on our pasts, which are tainted by regrets. We are now a part of the general society, yet we have failed to fully discern the problems faced by ordinary Cameroonians. We continue to brood over the failures of our noble intentions, which by present-day evaluations could not have been fully in touch with the general societal reality.
4) The fourth reason for Parlement’s failure was traditional interests. The fact that Yaounde University students failed to continue the boycott of classes and rushed back to the campus from their areas of refuge after the April crackdown for the sole purpose of collecting their stipends which the government was using as a bait to lure them back; the fact that many students continued to feed from the heavily subsidized university restaurant; and the fact that they showed up en-masse following the government’s improvised ploy of mid-year re-registration, which proceeded, with the resumption of classes, gave enough reasons for Parlement to revise its strategies.
We should have strengthened our solidarity. But we did not. That is why pundits looked at it as a divine favor when the armed forces of the Biya regime cracked down on the students commemorating the first anniversary of the bloody launch of the Social Democratic Front (SDF) in the Parlement grounds (square) on May 26, 1991, thereby orchestrating the second flight of students to the provinces. Still, we failed to correct our past errors; retaining our romantic fervor instead. The fact that the University students had not fully grasped the true purpose of the struggle made them to fall prey to the regime’s second bait that threatened to terminate their enrollment if they did not reregister for the announced June end of year exams, even though students had been involved in only three months of studies that academic year. The majority of the Yaounde University students discarded their militant fervor and revolutionary objectives and rushed back to the campuses for fear of being betrayed by their peers. In the end, for the sake of self-interest, a small majority folded, believing that the custodians of the system would favor them with a pass if they wrote the exams. By accepting the masquerade of a successful academic year, the Yaounde University students unfastened the string that was suffocating the Biya regime and relieved it of the specter of an annulled academic year. For a pass and the acquisition of impotent certificates, students of the University of Yaounde sold the ideal that had raised our image in the eyes of the society that we were bound to serve. For a while, or perhaps forever, the songs of Parlement have ceased to be heard. “Nous sommes du Parlement (We are of the Parliament)” and Parlement Oui, Oui, Oui, Auto Defense Non, Non, Non (Parliament Yes, Yes, Yes, Auto Defence No, No, No) may soon constitute songs of our distant memories that bring with them regrets than pride and glory. Students of the University of Yaounde reneged that June 1991 when they capitulated by;
· re-registering,
· collecting their stipends,
· And by sitting for the end of year exams.
The tragic result has been the loss of faith in the student movement. By the beginning of the 1991-1992 academic years, Parlement had become a spent force. However, as it is the course of all student Movements, Parlement had to go through its three-year span to 1993.
5) The student movement (Parlement) like any other radical organization was susceptible to penetration by agents. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t be afraid of thinking, talking, planning and acting for fear of agents. Instead, the possibility of their presence around should keep us on the alert, make our lips less slippery, our plans more thorough, our actions more guided and effective, and our results tenable. Those are possible only by having the right ideals and proper organization. That means accepting radical actions when appropriate and deliberately creating detachable chains in operations. Unfortunately, we had a poor organization and allowed agents to pervade our midst. These were:
· The agents of the government.
· the politically immature who unconsciously acted as agents by being too vocal and overtly militant in advocating violence that ended up implicating the movement;
· The liberal and moderate students who in their virginal minds believed that the puppet Mafioso Biya regime stirring the French-imposed system that is the base of Francafrique (official and underground French networks in Francophone Africa) could be made to reason through conciliatory moves.
It was by exploiting the rhetoric of the politically immature that the government staged its lethal blow on Parlement. The fact that some immature Parlement militants and leaders promised death to traitors and agents of the government exposed the movement to possible trump-up charges. The Biya regime exploited that when it burned Njoya and Kamga Collins in their rooms in 1991 and 1993 respectively and charged their deaths on the student movement. However, it was only in 1993, after the death of Kamga Collins that the regime felt confident enough to carry out its final sweep. Aware that the movement was divided and heaving out labored breaths, the inhuman Biya regime expelled what was left of the post-1991 batch of the Parlement leadership from the University of Yaounde and the new University of Buea. Today, Parlement has ceased to be a cohesive force, with its leadership in the Diaspora―abroad and at home, and with some even serving as agents of the government, the dehumanized French-imposed system.
March 28, 1995 Janvier T.C
Afterthought: December 29, 2010:
True exponents of change have been observing the recent confidence and audacity of the Biya regime in its latest foray into the Northwest province and the humiliating posturing of known leaders from this honorable province of change, leading the struggling masses and advocates of change in the province feeling that they have been completely deserted. We have also been observing the increasing number of presidential hopefuls that make pundits wonder if they understand what the struggle is all about. In fact, one would be tempted to borrow from Che Guevara in his observation that “Africans are suffering from incomprehension.”
It is mind-boggling imagining that change can be realized in Cameroon under the current setup of a decrepit opposition, the most efficient election-rigging machinery the world has ever produced (the French imposed anachronistic system under the stewardship of Paul Biya) that disenfranchises more than half of its population before elections, prevents more than half of the registered voters from voting, ensures multiple voting for its supporters, prevents the opposition from having representatives in most of the polling booths and acts at will in multiplying the vote tallies at the booth, district, divisional, provincial(regional) and national levels. And when the election masquerade is over, France, as usual, would be there to congratulate Biya, thereby leading the international effort for the regime’s legitimization.
We are about to get into the next decade of the New Millennium. The conflagration of forces, time and destiny is on the side of advocates of change. The New Cameroon would be born in this decade. But it would be a hard and merciless struggle. It would need an effective organization, dedicated leadership, a spirited population, a united purpose, a national ideal, knowledge of our history and reconciliation with our past to make the change less costly. It would involve dismantling the system. That calls for undivided ranks in the opposition. We should start 2011 building-up resolve, clearly defining a strategy, identifying our goals and clearly identifying the camps. Indispensable in the effort are purposeful debates, progressive alliances and effective PR.
The New Cameroon will be born on the shoulders of the post-independence generations, the Parlement age group, and especially on the feet and voices of the post-1990 generation.
Janvier Tchouteu, author of “FALLEN HEROES: African Leaders Whose Assassinations Disarrayed the Continent and Benefitted Foreign Interests”
https://amazon.com/dp/1980996695/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_JX6Q26H573RSKG7HT9V6
Janvier Tchouteu is the author of " The Mistakes To Be Avoided in Building The New Cameroon"
Cameroon: France’s Dysfunctional Puppet System in Africa
by Janvier Tchouteu
No comments:
Post a Comment