Re: Elections spotlight Cameroon's weak democracy

In my first write up above, I note the difference between African style monarchy and the European or English as you seem to compare. Let me re-quote and by the way, this is not my theory. It's taught in political science classes here in the U.S.

"In Europe, as in England, the monarch is at the top of the political structure and wields 0 political influence. Democracy works best when the lowest level of government is democratic moving up to the top. That's the way the English system is. The reason why democracy works best that way is because the rulers are the bottom have the most contacts with the population on a daily basis. Not only does this train the population in democratic government, but the people too can vie for rulership which is a good training for democracy. In Africa, it's the opposite. In Africa, we have unelected, hereditary leaders at the lowest level of authority".

So you and others need to quit making it sound like there is a parallel between the English style and the Cameroonian style.

Finally, I'm 100% certain that you are not currently sitting behind a computer in a South African or Nigerian or Cameroon village for that matter.

Its irking when some of us travel and see good things and live abroad but refuse to replicate the same things we enjoy abroad so that others back home would enjoy. We can't be short cited into thinking that business acumen (technology for instance) can be made possible even in an atmosphere lacking in a good participatory political framework. See China. 

On Friday, October 4, 2013 11:10:41 AM UTC-4, ftroit wrote:

 I am sure according to you, South Africans, Nigerians and the people from Khama's country fair in human development index better than the English. Just like the faux political scientists I am referring to, you cite the mediocre best and misconstrue facts.

Additionally, you cite a handful of exceptions to the general rule. There's like what, 54 countries in Africa? How many in Europe? Let's go by percentage points and compare the level of political maturity or even the leadership of these countries. There's always an exception to a general rule. This is not natural science where 1 plus 1 will always give you 2. But in social phenomena such as this, use the more likely than not standard or the majority standard.

And speaking of hereditary, that's my whole point. Why hereditary? Who said so? Who said it's gotta be so? Who are they to even make such a decision for it to be so? Who? Where are they let me talk to them? Oh, You mean I can't talk to them because they some spirit? Give me a break!

I will take the presidents of all of Europe any day over anyone in Africa.

Finally, the people you cite may have been great and all, but what happened with their legacies? South Africa is coming along well, but there are tons of reasons that account for it, to include the input and insistence of the Boers to see that the system they built (which Mandela wisely kept) doesn't crumble. Although the new guy is doing his best to destroy it). What they built have not been tenable. The political culture accounts for why these have not been sustainable. Ahmadu Bello may have been a great guy who believed in participatory democracy, but we all know the route that Nigeria has taken. All what Nigeria went through speaks volumes of its political culture. In Nigeria, politicians and aspiring presidents know to cut deals with chiefs because they know chiefs wield enormous power on their populations. There are still a lot of corrupt chiefs in Awolowos land. Again, South Africa may be the only example and I'm sure you are not deaf to what people say about South AFrica. If the "white man" didn't go and build South Africa, South Africa would be just like any other sub-saharan country. See Zimbabwe.

On Friday, October 4, 2013 10:44:36 AM UTC-4, Thomas Jing wrote:

a Fon is not democratically elected. his position is hereditary, like the English monarchs. it is different from a peasant who takes power in a democratic setting and clings onto it. "the way your culture is, dictates your political system," you write. actually some of the best African leaders come from very traditional background. Mandela, Seretse Khama, Ahmadu Bello (ah yes, ahmadu bello!), Awolowo... those who are well grounded in traditional African values make better leaders than their western counterparts. the latter are selfish, dishonest, violent, greedy... 
 

---

Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:27:44 -0700
From: ftr...@hotmail.com
To: amba...@googlegroups.com
CC: thoma...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Elections spotlight Cameroon's weak democracy

You are exactly right. Democracy in all of Africa is an illusion. It's not our thing. We pay lip service to it. We still have the big man syndrome. The big man syndrome is perpetuated by natural leaders so called chiefs, fons, lamidos, kings, etc. Don't know about your dialects, but the literal translation of how we call the fon translates into English as "Big Man". The name for the chief or fon where I come from is "Wed Kieng", which means Big Man.

Many heads of State see themselves as "Super Wed Kiengs". That is, Super Big Men, Super Chiefs, Super Fons. Anyone doubt why a Super Chief won't want to remain in power for as long as, or for longer than a regular village chief?

Political Systems are cultural. The way your culture is, dictates your political system. Democracy has come out to be the best form of political system. Ours in Cameroon, and in Africa is not even close

You don't need to have taken a political science class to figure some of these things out. Of course fake political scientists have written books claiming that Africa can harness both these traditional institutions and democracy and make it work. What they don't tell you is that those theories have not worked, are not pragmatic. They all try to do things the "African Way", without being pragmatic. They cite no empirical evidence other than Ghana to show that their theories work. Not recognizing that a political system is as good as the lives of its people. Or as if to say because we are Africans we should be content with the level where Ghana is.



On Friday, October 4, 2013 9:21:48 AM UTC-4, Thomas Jing wrote:

democracy in Cameroon is an illusion!
 

---

Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 11:19:39 -0700
From: ftr...@hotmail.com
To: amba...@googlegroups.com
CC: cameroon...@yahoogroups.com; Camero...@yahoogroups.com; MANY...@aufoundation.org; min...@yahoogroups.com; bateyg...@yahoo.ca; bateyg...@yahoo.ca
Subject: Re: Elections spotlight Cameroon's weak democracy

Weak opposition

Local and foreign observers say the opposition suffers from structural weakness and democracy in the country is feeble.

I just don't understand why cultural conservatives can't understand this basic notion that democracy is "education". Democracy is practice.  But most importantly, democracy is better attained when taught AND PRACTICED from BOTTOM -> Up.

Our democracy is not mature, at least, not as fast as one would expect as long as we do not have a veritable dialogue on, and even eventual replacement of the current natural leadership style government we call chiefs, fons, lamidos.

One course we had at the law faculty in Soa is "Political Institutions". Here, we studied that before the west brought democracy we always had our system of natural leadership. We also learned that before the west choose a better implementation of democracy they also broadly practiced natural leadership just like we currently do in Cameroon (Africa). The west then reformed and largely embraced democracy in its pragmatic sense.

Only a fool will wonder why democracy works for the most part in European countries that still have monarchies yet won't work in African nations where we also have monarchs. Duh!! The difference is that the West understood that democracy works best from bottom to top. In other words, it's better democracy to have democratic institutions at the most basic level of government (and then a monarch at the top) as in Europe, rather than the other way around. This also explains why even China, which is not considered a democratic country has survived implotion for so long since the father of their nation put the system in place. China's local institutions are elected, even if everyone in China belongs to the same party. At the end of the day, it's more about the person and not about the party they adhere to.

At least for Europe and the West, they had an excuse, they created democracy and didn't have any books or examples to follow. But in our case, the pragmatic examples of countries that have made it and those that haven't speak for themselves. Yet, we fail to grasp this useful knowledge.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.