By Serge Banyongen*
Elections in Africa are expensive, and international donors like the United Nations Development Program often pay the bill. In 2018, Cameroon reportedly spent over 50 billion francs CFA on the presidential election. The international community partly funds these elections, hoping that sustainable peace stems from building liberal democracies and market economies. The theory is that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other, a notion supported by history.
However, in Africa generally and Cameroon specifically, elections alone do not necessarily establish democracy. Rigged elections can trigger internal conflicts; conflicts that cost lives and economic stability, causing decades of disruption and suffering.
The 2018 post-presidential election conflicts in Cameroon sparked questions about whether to invest such large sums in the “democratization process” or to direct resources toward alleviating poverty. In Cameroon the chances of a peaceful transition of power are slim while opponents are imprisoned, and presidential candidates deliberately split the anti-Biya vote to help the 92-year-old president stay in power.
This is why many international organizations focus on observing and analysing political events like elections to evaluate their potential to trigger conflict. The European Union has created the Global Conflict Risk Index (IMRC), a tool for early warning in case of disputes. At the same time, the International Crisis Group has developed CrisisWatch, a global conflict monitoring and early warning system designed to prevent deadly violence. Each month, it supplies decision-makers with the latest information on more than 70 conflicts and crises, highlighting trends and warning signs of escalation, as well as opportunities for peace. These monitoring tools assume the universal value of democracy and elections, while others argue that each culture is unique and should rule its population in its own way.
Experts cynically classify conflicts worldwide based on their intensity, cynically measured by the number of direct deaths caused. Therefore, conflicts resulting in fewer than 1,000 deaths annually are regarded as low intensity.
The war in the English-speaking regions of northern and southwestern Cameroon is a political-military struggle between peace and conventional warfare, characterized by limited use of arms, tactics, and force to achieve political, social, or economic goals. As a result, it does not received significant media attention nationally, where authorities have threatened critics, and internationally, where coverage is dominated by longstanding armed conflicts (Palestine, Ukraine) that are more dramatic and appealing, as well as the antics of prominent populist leaders like US President Donald Trump.
Power struggles after the polls close
Cameroon has at least three distinct armies: the regular forces, the national army, the rapid reaction brigade, and the presidential guard. In other words, old personal conflicts and inter-institutional power struggles could re-emerge with devastating impact in the event of a bloody post-election conflict.
From Côte d’Ivoire to Kenya, elections highlight frustrations and are a critical moment, primarily when, as in Cameroon, suspicions of fraud are deeply rooted.
Good-faith partners should act now
Cameroon’s international partners know all this. Prevention is better than cure, so it is crucial that they quickly inform the key players in Cameroonian politics about what is expected of them, before the elections, regarding the use of hate speech, and afterwards concerning actions taken to support specific candidates’ victory or suppress the will of the voters.
In situations like Cameroon, diplomatic missions and good-faith partner countries have several tools that have proven effective elsewhere. Key strategies include early warning systems, engaging neutral third parties (such as the European Union), regional cooperation (like the African Union), and investing in diplomacy to improve international expertise, dialogue, and negotiation.
Now is the time to revive initiatives like the Canadian and Swiss approaches, which extremists on the government side have previously buried.
To address the root causes of conflict in the NWSW regions, diplomatic efforts should focus on long-term policies aimed at sustainable human development, such as improving education and healthcare, to tackle underlying factors that can lead to conflict. Alternatively, they could adopt human security approaches, which combine diplomatic efforts to incorporate human security into national and international policies, representing a comprehensive approach to ensuring the security and well-being of people.
Whatever path the international donors choose, they must do it immediately instead of watching from a distance.
*Dr Serge Banyongen is a lecturer in politics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. The views expressed in the article are his.
