NB: This article was originally published in 2018 in multiple Cameroonian newspapers in both English and French.

At this pivotal moment when Cameroonians are witnessing an unprecedented upsurge in violence, both at home and at abroad, the quest for peace has become a great concern for many Cameroonians. The war going on in the Anglophone regions of the country portrays to us the devastating effect that violent conflicts can have on a country. This war has affected several sectors (economic, social, educational, etc.) of our country and has prompted the displacement of about half a million people, externally and internally. Cameroonians, especially in the North-West and South-West Regions, known as the anglophone regions, live in constant fear and insecurity not knowing what the future will hold for them. Who could have seen this coming? Given that the regime in place used to brag about Cameroon, with the empty slogan, like “Cameroon! a harbor of peace and stability in Africa”. Unfortunately, today, we have caught up with reality as the country is tearing apart and Cameroonians including the diaspora are increasingly becoming irritated and desperately wanting to express their frustrations. In this context, people are attempting to offer solutions that could end the violence and bring about peace. However, for sustainable peace to return to Cameroon it is important for people to understand what peace is all about in the first place.   

PEACE, hitherto, remains one of the most difficult concepts to define because it is perceived from different perspectives and positions in a given society. In fact, peace for one person may appear to be an injustice to another. The unending quest for peace provides ample evidence elucidating how people are different, and that these differences are the natural cause of conflicts. Peace is also a representation of the kind of society we live in, and most often our society is defined by the most powerful people, who always want to impose their definition of peace on others. For the case for Cameroon, I had demonstrated, in a previous article, how the Cameroonian government has often present to Cameroonians stability, through force, as peace. Unfortunately, this kind of peace can never be sustainable.  

However, history teaches us that as society has evolved, so too has the perception of peace. Nothing in this world remains permanent as change is the only constant thing. From the ancient Roman saying of Si vis pacem, para bellum (if you want peace, prepare for war) to Johan Galtung's definition of NEGATIVE PEACE (absence of war) and POSITIVE PEACE (absence of social injustice, corruption, poverty, etc.), we can say that the concept of peace has come a long way. 

No matter how people define peace, we can observe that the concept is closely linked to violence. If there is anything peace studies scholars can easily agree on, it is the fact that conflict is inevitable and natural, but violence is not. Conflict can be transformed positively or negatively depending on how it is managed. Since peace is unavoidably understood through the socio-political and socio-economic structures of distribution of wealth and power in a society or a nation, the concept has much to do with the change of the status quo, between the haves and the have nots. Here lies the fundamental difference. Evidently, the change of the status quo in most cases embodies an aspiration for one and at the same time a nightmare for another. One side sees change as an opportunity and the other side sees it as a threat. In this context, change can make some people, especially the most powerful, to be insecure as their fear for the future becomes more apparent. At this point, the conflict scenario is already set, also known as the polarization stage.  

When a country finds itself in this kind of situation, the logic of understanding and common sense must supersede that of misunderstanding and the strict respect of the law. In fact, it becomes an opportunity to change the laws and why not the constitution, given that these laws were not put in place to safeguard the interest of the less privileged of society. For both sides, particularly those with much to lose, to avoid going down the slippery slope of violence, it is imperative for a dialogue to be initiated in order to achieve understanding, which is the heart of violence prevention. Unfortunately, this is not often the case, especially when you must deal with an irresponsible government. 

What happens then if the powerful people failed to initiate dialogue? 

At this point, the HAVE NOTS, so desperate for change and having nothing to lose, will definitely make recourse to violence as the inevitable means to obtain their goal. The asymmetric warfare tactics like guerrilla warfare or terrorism will very much be used by the HAVE NOTS. It is worth mentioning that these methods have oftentimes pushed the HAVES to call for dialogue (however it most often takes a long period of time). But sometimes the radical position taken by both sides make dialogue difficult to come about and when it happens it does not necessarily pave the way to any sustainable peace. It is more an elite settlement which is not bottom-top. Violence, therefore, is not often the solution. 

At the same time, we should not, therefore, be surprised that when dialogue is delayed in solving problems in society, people become radicalized and tend to be more violent. By way of illustration, conflict is just like fire, when it is not dealt with in time, it gets worse and becomes more difficult to control. Therefore, timing in resolving conflict is key. In this regard, two wrongs will never do a right because everybody is a loser.    

Nevertheless, NON-VIOLENCE in recent years has proven to be an effective tool for the status quo to be changed. NON-VIOLENCE is that light of justice, love, and truth that puts out the darkness of injustice, violence, manipulation, and hatred. What also makes the non-violence strategy effective is its quest to purify society's ills through timeless values while inviting its opponents to learn in the process.  The main goal of NON-VIOLENCE is to transform your enemies into your friends. It is for this reason that the NON-VIOLENCE strategy leads to RECONCILIATION AND FORGIVENESS, which is the purpose of African restorative justice the contrary to the Western retributive justice. 

In this regard, therefore, peace, a term difficult to define, remains a perpetual quest which must be worked on daily and should be the result of mutual understanding and not one side forcing the other side to accept its views. Therefore, the peace we make today is the peace that will determine our future. So, what peace do we want? Is it a peace hitched on justice, truth, and equality or one driven by self-interest, manipulation, injustice, and violence?  

As far as Cameroon is concerned, the ball is still on side of the government. It should not forget that Cameroonians did not become radicalized or violent in one day. The radicalization of Cameroonians is as a result of 37 years of bad governance, injustice, structural violence, marginalization and a failure to respond to the basic needs of its people. Institutions are judged by their performances and not their name. If institutions are not there to serve and respond to the needs of their people, there is no need for people to respect them. It is just as an irresponsible father who does not provide for the needs of his children, will not expect his family to respect him because he is simply called a father. The same goes for institutions that do not cater to the needs of their people.    

Wanah Immanuel BUMAKOR,

Researcher and Consultant in African International Relations, Peace Studies and Conflict Management