The Paradox of Decentralization in Cameroon: By Enowbachem Agbortanyi

As defined in the lexicon of Judicial terminologies, decentralization is seen as a system of administration that permits a group of human beings or community otherwise known as a human collectivity (thus, making allusion to territorial decentralization) to administer itself under the watchful control of the state which gives this community or service a judicial personality, a distinct authority and its own resources to manage (UNDEF, 2015).

From the above definition, it comes out clearly that decentralization depends on three essential ingredients namely: the political, sociologic and judicial ingredients. Consequently, for there to be true decentralization, three conditions must emerge, which include; The collectivity must be a self-administered entity. This implies that there are certain recognized and acceptable individual interests; These individualized interests must be recognized as such, as well as the competence of the decentralized that has to resolve these problems which in itself intends to solve, must be affirmed or recognized; this autonomous administration must be carried out under the auspices of an elected organ in the collectivity; The decentralized organ must have certain autonomy to manage certain affairs of the collectivity. Here, it implies giving the decentralized structure a judicial personality. This means that a decentralized state must be capable of managing itself through its elected officials.

The assessment of the legal framework and of its stakeholders shows that the decentralization law passed in 2004 in Cameroon has Local Development and Governance as their main thrust. The new laws certainly create an environment that represents an irreversible forward step towards the process of decentralization but are in a need of completion by the passing of legal instruments of application for them to effectively accelerate the pace of the decentralization process and good governance. There is also need for better organization and coordination of interventions of the stakeholders. The process is currently hampered by especially financial constraints on local authorities and limited capacities of the actors and beneficiaries of development process.

According to part 10(Article 55) of the 18^th January 1996 Cameroon constitution, it emphasizes on the aspect of decentralization by legalizing the creation of local councils and brings out their functions. It also spells out their jurisdictions and grants them autonomy that is power to make rules governing the municipality under the supervision of the central government.

It is worth nothing that Article 55 (2) state clearly that “regional and local authorities shall be public law corporate bodies. They shall have administrative and financial autonomy in the management of regional and local interests. They shall be freely administered by councils elected under conditions laid down by law. The duty of the regional and local authorities shall be to promote the economic, social, health, educational, cultural and sports development of the said authority.”

This already creates the understanding that the objectives of the policy of decentralization in Cameroon is for development.

It is important to understand that decentralization is different from federalism in the sense that the decentralized collectivity has autonomy but is not totally independent of the central government because the central authority exercises supervisory authority over the decentralized collectivity. Decentralization is a search for new legitimacy by the state in a constantly changing environment and whose permanent preoccupation is to confide to the local population the management and development of their locality.

In Cameroon law, territorial decentralization is defined in Article 55 of the 18^th January 1996 constitution and its modification when it states that “the territorial collectivities of the Republic are the regions and councils”. Some fundamental principles of territorial decentralization include: the concept of local affairs or territorial specificity; the principle of co-administration of the territory; the principle of judicial and financial autonomy.

In 2004, the State of Cameroon embarked on the process of decentralization which entails transferring some competences to the local government or council for proper management. Since the inception of this policy, there have been accusations and counter arguments from political and opinion leaders who claim that the policy will remain a nightmare in a centralized state as Cameroon. This explains why recently, some political leaders and other opinion holders have been clamoring for a change of the form of the State with many asking for the return to the federal system of government which was practiced in 1961.

It is not possible in the present state of affairs for councils to be decentralized and autonomous. Decentralization cannot be practiced in a Centralized state like Cameroon where all decisions come from the headquarters and are imposed on councils. The Senior Divisional Officers and the Government Delegates; all appointed by the President of the Republic, are delegated authorities which supersedes that of elected Mayors. The appointed officials tend to have final and /or veto decisions on most affairs of the councils. Thus, there is no level of autonomy because the elected local government leaders are being over-checked by the central government’s appointed officials. Decentralization remains a theoretical policy whose implementation can only be realized if the government hands over all the powers to local authorities as defined by the decentralization law in the country.

Recently, following the recommendations of the Major National Dialogue which was aimed at resolving the Anglophone crisis; it completely ignored the main proposal which was the form of state, suggested by many groups/persons that were consulted prior to the dialogue. This shows that the dialogue had a prepared agenda and result as it failed to meet the aspirations of the two affected regions. The main recommendation which is still hoped to be implemented by the government is the granting of “special status” to both regions as stipulated in Article 62 of the 1996 Cameroon constitution. The form of state was prohibited on the dialogue table, while the government emphasized on the continuity of its 23 years old decentralization policy which so far has yielded less than half the percentage of its expectations.

Berinyuy Cajetan, Publisher

Berinyuy Cajetan is the founder and publisher of Human Rights and Legal Research Centre (HRLRC) since 2017. He has intensive experience in strategic communications for Civil Society Organizations, campaign and advocacy, and social issues. He has an intensive experiencing in human rights monitoring, documentation and reporting.