Sign in or 
Share this
The Role of a House of Chiefs
The Southern Cameroons (West Cameroon) had a functional "House of Chiefs" until la Republique du Cameroun illegally absorbed the Southern Cameroons in 1971. La Republique du Cameroun, weaned under the French colonial/republican model, cannot conceive a role for traditional rulers except as direct agents to ease state control of the population. And the result, after three decades of this policy? Severe erosion of classical African values and removal of our kings from participation in post-colonial, regional government. Predictably, instead of increasing state control, replacing it has producedstate terror and chaos, especially in societies which had the strongest traditions. The House of Chiefs seems to be a British colonial dilution of their House of Lords. We must add that in the later days of West Cameroon, serious questions were being raised about the need of a house of chiefs.
In this piece, the collaborative writers are to address the notion of a House of Chiefs. Some of the suggested discussions:
Pros for a house of Chiefs
The monarchs (kings and queens) of Southern Cameroons are descendants of the very monarchs for whom we all fought against hungry invaders. This fact raises new questions, the kind that voters and presidential candidates never ask anywhere in Africa. If the soldiers who fought had defeated our enemies, would our soldiers have committed coups agains our monarchs? or reduced them to ordinary (as Cameroun did)? or to subordinate representatives in parliament--an imitation of the enemy's system of government?
In this piece, the collaborative writers are to address the notion of a House of Chiefs. Some of the suggested discussions:
Pros for a house of Chiefs
The monarchs (kings and queens) of Southern Cameroons are descendants of the very monarchs for whom we all fought against hungry invaders. This fact raises new questions, the kind that voters and presidential candidates never ask anywhere in Africa. If the soldiers who fought had defeated our enemies, would our soldiers have committed coups agains our monarchs? or reduced them to ordinary (as Cameroun did)? or to subordinate representatives in parliament--an imitation of the enemy's system of government?
Objections to including Classical Rulers are equally true of the wielders of power after independence. As is being discussed currently, they too have squandered the opportunity that trick independence gave us and returned us to the control of the original colonisers: Europe. And put us back in debt to Europe whom we feed oil, coffee, gold, diamonds, uranium, strontium, aluminium, and muscle--our muscle for their work.
So whether we revive the House of Classical Rulers or revive elected rulers, we are reviving one system or the other. And neither is perfect, we are not only poised to revive but also to improve whichever we revive. It is not an either/or proposition, though. Elected officials and the traditional rulers should have different, defined roles. Hopefully we shall be working for a democracy, and not a society with rulers in the strict old sense.
Evolution is the natural direction for any system that survives. Our root problem is that conquest and colonisation arrested, stopped, froze the natural evolution from within that was our lot in Africa.
If we liberate Southern Cameroons and once again squander an opportunity to regain our senses (by regaining our own systems), we shall simply be pushing harder work onto our children, in the same way that Foncha/Muna dumped this independence burden on us. Not a proud heritage to leave any children, let alone our very own children.
I would prefer that we revive and improve our own system rather revive and improve the foreign system that has been used by both the foreigner and the current puppet of the foreigner to expropriate us and to bring us to this nightmare that is visible all over Africa. We should not assume that our system was perfect. We cannot go back to the future. Rather, we salvage what is good and go into the future.
It is in all likelihood true that there was no house of traditional rulers in ancient times. The various kingdoms sometimes lived in harmony with each other. At other times, they warred on each other, and even became agents in the transAtlantic slave trade. Even today some of them are rife with practices that are abusive to women and the rights of of individuals.We must therefore establish a healthy balance between respect for these institutions and criticisms of their problems.
Please, note that in our neighbour, Nigeria among the Yoruba, the term Chief has no gender designation
Cons against reestablishment of the House of Chiefs:
That the institution of the traditional ruler has been damaged beyond repair by la republique, that we may seek more republican solutions but more honest than what we have encountered in la republique. Some of the practices of the current chiefs are out of date and include traditions that are abusive of women's rights. There is also a well founded view that our African monarchs have tended to serve themselves rather than their people. With noted exceptions such as Kuve Likenye of Gbea, they caved in to the colonial onslaught and participated as beneficiaries of the transatlantic slave trade. The picture on the right, from National Geographic, is of
Should it be called "House of Chiefs" or is there a more appropriate name
House of Monarchs will be more accurate: some members may be queens, although we are yet to see an actual example of a reigning queen.
Duties and responsibilities of a HOC
In a democratic order, the term "ruler" is anathema. There is an absolutist ring to the word "ruler" and so when we use it, we must have that caveat. An absolute traditional ruler of the ilk of the ruler of Rey Bouba in la Republique, who enjoys the power of life and death over his subjects and owns slaves should be repugnant to all Southern Cameroonians. La Republique has been chipping away at the traditional institutions with some success. Indigent traditional rulers with too many wives, even more children and a population too poor to maintain their highnesses in dignity, are easy targets for la republique, who keeps stripping away at the dignity of the institution, with a few colonial francs.
Southern Cameroons could provide a way of restoring the dignity of the office, and restoring their relevance through the House of Chiefs or House of Monarchs. That could be done by giving the house of chiefs circumscribed responsibilities that could have a positive impact on the nation.
There is a truism in American politics, that only Nixon could establish relations between America and China. The reason is that he was a man of the right, the Republican party, which was most vociferously and vehemently anticommunist. A more moderate figure would lack the credibility to pull that off.
The House of Monarchs should have the responsibility to enable harmony between our diverse ethnic groups and ethnic interests. That is what they should be paid to do, to cure tribalism while maintaining and developing our traditions. There is a distinct difference between traditional rulers of today and when we were children in the Southern Cameroons. Almost all of them are well educated in the Western sense. This has its advantages and disadvantages.
Could a house of monarchs become part of the solution for the problem of the ethnic divide? It would be interesting to get some opinions on this - not simple yes or no answers, but in the form of a thorough discussion.
The House of classical Rulers is the solution to the ethnic distraction LRC has left us. They cannot bring guns to the Palavar House. Therefore, they must talk, which is already better. I feel guilty of an arrogance here: I sound like some engineer planning what my rulers shall and shall not do. Still, until I withdraw, the issue facing the homeland and its continent is aggravated by talkers who don't listen to each other, Meritans who don't respect the insights of other Meritans, who don't read their brothers' and sisters' books. Chinweizu's situation report about an ongoing genocide programme against us is a typical example. Typical because readers respond in superficially. Typical in the self-censorship diagnosed as proof of comfortable servility, niggerliness. Ostrichism. To resume: our central crises is one of identity which places us to choose/recognise our identity as Meritans/Africans rather as de-Africanised persons or niggers at the service of our enemies. This problem shows up in how we face independence of Southern Cameroons. Some of us imagine our very enemies as ready pretty soon to help us to solve our problem with them! Truth is, we shall do it ourselves, or anyone else will do it for them, and the independent territory will be ruled by usurpers. And the thousands who shall rise to drive out the current occupier shall find themselves ruled by an equally dictatorial, authoritarian group which will be impossible to dislodge precisely because we put them there legitimately. Everyone I talk to concedes this feature of the current movements/groups towards independence.
Our love for democracy is exposed in the Chinweizu essay and in other insights on the internet as a sign of surrendering initiative, of copy-catting from the enemy's libraries or armory. Plato defined democracy as mob rule or mobocracy. Democracy is the third level to which a healthy republic eventually degenerates--unless stringent measures anticipate and prevent the decadence. In his famous blueprint for a healthy western society, The Republic, he lists in order from best to worst, the Republic (characterised by justice: trained rulers rule), timocracy (wealth qualifies one to rule), democracy (popularity but nothing else qualifies one to rule), and tyranny (dictatorship: loss of accountability from one's rulers). Current civic lessons for seekers of US naturalization teach it this way: QUESTION--What is our system of government? ANSWER--A republic.
This raises some important questions. Foremost of these is how a patriachichal, monarchical tradition (our traditional rulers) fits into a republic. The answer is that they must be subordinate to the republic (the rule of law), but in a way that does turn them into mere peons and does not deprive out traditions of dignity. Rulership has to be taken away from persons and subordinated to law that protects and guides ALL Southern Cameroonians.
Founders of the US system took immense care to NOT create a democracy in the United States, our best asylum during these pre-independence years. This does not suffice to recommend copying the American republican system (a matter of the ideals in its constitution). They had to improvise since they were rebelling against the status quo that followed them from Old Europe right into New Europe.
Plato's contempt for democracy is a product of his times, when he and only a handful of others were learned. The great masses of the people were slaves or plebes and ignorant, because there was no system of mandatory public education. It made sense then, to confine power to a ruling aristocracy, bred to rule. By increasing the quality of human beings in a population through education and the development of personal independence and critical thought, democracy can become a superior form of government and not mere mob rule. The American example is more correctly a democratic republic, because the will of the people is tempered by law, which upholds the sovereign rights of individuals and the constituent states and minorities, thereby regulating such mob tendencies as there are. Otherwise, it is a republic of aristocrats who confer power on themselves by birth or learning and then denigrate the worth of the others. One thing that history since Plato's time has taught us is that even philosopher kings are burdened by the human failings of greed and lust for power, and must be checked. Africans have these failings in equal measure to other human beings, and must be checked.
Copying and then improving foreign systems will always imply a discomfort with our own historical identities throughout Merita and in the Southern Cameroons. The upgrading we should be seeking should of our own system. It should be about borrowing specific elements (a very few) to add to a bulk of native, Classical Meritan features with which we were able to preserve this planet for thousands and thousands of years before the Europeans stepped onto the scene to create the present record against which the bulk of humanity is struggling. Information, scholarship, historical research to retrieve our true history, the one suppressed by colonisation and disinformation--these are some of the urgent tasks that cannot wait for independence. These are things we need to accomplish in our thinking before we become, like other improvisers, mere contributors to chaos. The health of our identity lies in recovery, reparation, retrieval of our history--what we contributed to the ancient world, and then we can trace and expose the derivatives that others falsely present today as originals. [To be developed further]
There is no shame in copying though, when something is worth copying. Some have suggested that much of the American system was copied from the native Americans. It would be interesting to provide some references about that. Nobody is complaining about using computers and the internet to bring us together easily or of using cars and jet planes to make it easier to meet physically. Chinweizu appears to be a touch too strident and paranoid. The philosophy for running a country ought to be more centered, calm and confident and not voiced in so much dread.
Is there reason to question the ability of the traditional rulers to deliver on a mission of bringing fairness and harmony to the ethnic life of the Southern Cameroons? They should be rewarded handsomely for delivering on such harmony.
The notion of First Class and Second Class chiefs. Does it hold water in the 21st century?
Should people of great merit be in a HOC other than traditional rulers?
Should Chiefs/Monarchs participate in partisan politics?
Some think it is good idea, from observing members of the House of Lords in the UK, who belong to political parties. But, we are not the UK. The British Lords have no actual hereditary power on the people, and lack the means or influence to sway the regular citizen one way or the other. In la republique, our traditional rulers are made indigent, and then influenced to support the CPDM, the Cameroun ruling party. This has a disruptive effect on community relations, because the chief or monarch loses his function as peacemaker and uniter.
It is in all likelihood true that there was no house of traditional rulers in ancient times. The various kingdoms sometimes lived in harmony with each other. At other times, they warred on each other, and even became agents in the transAtlantic slave trade. Even today some of them are rife with practices that are abusive to women and the rights of of individuals.We must therefore establish a healthy balance between respect for these institutions and criticisms of their problems.
Please, note that in our neighbour, Nigeria among the Yoruba, the term Chief has no gender designation
Cons against reestablishment of the House of Chiefs:
That the institution of the traditional ruler has been damaged beyond repair by la republique, that we may seek more republican solutions but more honest than what we have encountered in la republique. Some of the practices of the current chiefs are out of date and include traditions that are abusive of women's rights. There is also a well founded view that our African monarchs have tended to serve themselves rather than their people. With noted exceptions such as Kuve Likenye of Gbea, they caved in to the colonial onslaught and participated as beneficiaries of the transatlantic slave trade. The picture on the right, from National Geographic, is of
"Kingdom Elenwa, traditional ruler of the Egi people, of the Delta Region of Nigeria relaxes with his grandson after the annual yam festival in Akabuka. The oil firm Total paid for the furniture."National Geographic emphasized this fact, because the local people that they interviewed complained that the oil companies cut deals with individual chiefs without consulting with them about their needs. We may revere our traditional rulers, but most be mindful about idealizing them.
Should it be called "House of Chiefs" or is there a more appropriate name
House of Monarchs will be more accurate: some members may be queens, although we are yet to see an actual example of a reigning queen.
Duties and responsibilities of a HOC
In a democratic order, the term "ruler" is anathema. There is an absolutist ring to the word "ruler" and so when we use it, we must have that caveat. An absolute traditional ruler of the ilk of the ruler of Rey Bouba in la Republique, who enjoys the power of life and death over his subjects and owns slaves should be repugnant to all Southern Cameroonians. La Republique has been chipping away at the traditional institutions with some success. Indigent traditional rulers with too many wives, even more children and a population too poor to maintain their highnesses in dignity, are easy targets for la republique, who keeps stripping away at the dignity of the institution, with a few colonial francs.
Southern Cameroons could provide a way of restoring the dignity of the office, and restoring their relevance through the House of Chiefs or House of Monarchs. That could be done by giving the house of chiefs circumscribed responsibilities that could have a positive impact on the nation.
There is a truism in American politics, that only Nixon could establish relations between America and China. The reason is that he was a man of the right, the Republican party, which was most vociferously and vehemently anticommunist. A more moderate figure would lack the credibility to pull that off.
The House of Monarchs should have the responsibility to enable harmony between our diverse ethnic groups and ethnic interests. That is what they should be paid to do, to cure tribalism while maintaining and developing our traditions. There is a distinct difference between traditional rulers of today and when we were children in the Southern Cameroons. Almost all of them are well educated in the Western sense. This has its advantages and disadvantages.
Could a house of monarchs become part of the solution for the problem of the ethnic divide? It would be interesting to get some opinions on this - not simple yes or no answers, but in the form of a thorough discussion.
The House of classical Rulers is the solution to the ethnic distraction LRC has left us. They cannot bring guns to the Palavar House. Therefore, they must talk, which is already better. I feel guilty of an arrogance here: I sound like some engineer planning what my rulers shall and shall not do. Still, until I withdraw, the issue facing the homeland and its continent is aggravated by talkers who don't listen to each other, Meritans who don't respect the insights of other Meritans, who don't read their brothers' and sisters' books. Chinweizu's situation report about an ongoing genocide programme against us is a typical example. Typical because readers respond in superficially. Typical in the self-censorship diagnosed as proof of comfortable servility, niggerliness. Ostrichism. To resume: our central crises is one of identity which places us to choose/recognise our identity as Meritans/Africans rather as de-Africanised persons or niggers at the service of our enemies. This problem shows up in how we face independence of Southern Cameroons. Some of us imagine our very enemies as ready pretty soon to help us to solve our problem with them! Truth is, we shall do it ourselves, or anyone else will do it for them, and the independent territory will be ruled by usurpers. And the thousands who shall rise to drive out the current occupier shall find themselves ruled by an equally dictatorial, authoritarian group which will be impossible to dislodge precisely because we put them there legitimately. Everyone I talk to concedes this feature of the current movements/groups towards independence.
Our love for democracy is exposed in the Chinweizu essay and in other insights on the internet as a sign of surrendering initiative, of copy-catting from the enemy's libraries or armory. Plato defined democracy as mob rule or mobocracy. Democracy is the third level to which a healthy republic eventually degenerates--unless stringent measures anticipate and prevent the decadence. In his famous blueprint for a healthy western society, The Republic, he lists in order from best to worst, the Republic (characterised by justice: trained rulers rule), timocracy (wealth qualifies one to rule), democracy (popularity but nothing else qualifies one to rule), and tyranny (dictatorship: loss of accountability from one's rulers). Current civic lessons for seekers of US naturalization teach it this way: QUESTION--What is our system of government? ANSWER--A republic.
This raises some important questions. Foremost of these is how a patriachichal, monarchical tradition (our traditional rulers) fits into a republic. The answer is that they must be subordinate to the republic (the rule of law), but in a way that does turn them into mere peons and does not deprive out traditions of dignity. Rulership has to be taken away from persons and subordinated to law that protects and guides ALL Southern Cameroonians.
Founders of the US system took immense care to NOT create a democracy in the United States, our best asylum during these pre-independence years. This does not suffice to recommend copying the American republican system (a matter of the ideals in its constitution). They had to improvise since they were rebelling against the status quo that followed them from Old Europe right into New Europe.
Plato's contempt for democracy is a product of his times, when he and only a handful of others were learned. The great masses of the people were slaves or plebes and ignorant, because there was no system of mandatory public education. It made sense then, to confine power to a ruling aristocracy, bred to rule. By increasing the quality of human beings in a population through education and the development of personal independence and critical thought, democracy can become a superior form of government and not mere mob rule. The American example is more correctly a democratic republic, because the will of the people is tempered by law, which upholds the sovereign rights of individuals and the constituent states and minorities, thereby regulating such mob tendencies as there are. Otherwise, it is a republic of aristocrats who confer power on themselves by birth or learning and then denigrate the worth of the others. One thing that history since Plato's time has taught us is that even philosopher kings are burdened by the human failings of greed and lust for power, and must be checked. Africans have these failings in equal measure to other human beings, and must be checked.
Copying and then improving foreign systems will always imply a discomfort with our own historical identities throughout Merita and in the Southern Cameroons. The upgrading we should be seeking should of our own system. It should be about borrowing specific elements (a very few) to add to a bulk of native, Classical Meritan features with which we were able to preserve this planet for thousands and thousands of years before the Europeans stepped onto the scene to create the present record against which the bulk of humanity is struggling. Information, scholarship, historical research to retrieve our true history, the one suppressed by colonisation and disinformation--these are some of the urgent tasks that cannot wait for independence. These are things we need to accomplish in our thinking before we become, like other improvisers, mere contributors to chaos. The health of our identity lies in recovery, reparation, retrieval of our history--what we contributed to the ancient world, and then we can trace and expose the derivatives that others falsely present today as originals. [To be developed further]
There is no shame in copying though, when something is worth copying. Some have suggested that much of the American system was copied from the native Americans. It would be interesting to provide some references about that. Nobody is complaining about using computers and the internet to bring us together easily or of using cars and jet planes to make it easier to meet physically. Chinweizu appears to be a touch too strident and paranoid. The philosophy for running a country ought to be more centered, calm and confident and not voiced in so much dread.
Is there reason to question the ability of the traditional rulers to deliver on a mission of bringing fairness and harmony to the ethnic life of the Southern Cameroons? They should be rewarded handsomely for delivering on such harmony.
The notion of First Class and Second Class chiefs. Does it hold water in the 21st century?
Should people of great merit be in a HOC other than traditional rulers?
Should Chiefs/Monarchs participate in partisan politics?
Some think it is good idea, from observing members of the House of Lords in the UK, who belong to political parties. But, we are not the UK. The British Lords have no actual hereditary power on the people, and lack the means or influence to sway the regular citizen one way or the other. In la republique, our traditional rulers are made indigent, and then influenced to support the CPDM, the Cameroun ruling party. This has a disruptive effect on community relations, because the chief or monarch loses his function as peacemaker and uniter.
MaMary |
Latest page update: made by MaMary
, Jan 29 2007, 12:57 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by MaMary
62 words added 1 word deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
chiefs
chieftaincy
Constitution
Fons
government
House of Chiefs
House of Lords
MONARCHS
tradition
Traditional rulers
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
