Cameroon’s national dialogue, organized in 2019 to address the Anglophone Crisis and promote peace, faces inclusivity and effectiveness concerns, mirroring other contested African dialogues.
Introduction
The persistence of conflict across Africa has fuelled the search for appropriate conflict resolution mechanisms. Recently, national dialogues have gained traction as vital instruments for peace transformation in the region. Successful dialogue processes generally assemble hundreds of delegates with diverse agendas, allowing for the inclusion of opposition, underrepresented, and marginalized groups. Inclusive participation is crucial in fostering lasting peace through such dialogues. Yet national dialogue processes in Cameroon and other African countries have been characterized for lack of inclusivity of opposition and key activists.
A Snapshot of Cameroon’s Major National Dialogue
Cameroon organised a ‘major National dialogue’ over three years ago to address its Anglophone Crisis. The approximately three-week short interval between the dialogue’s announcement and commencement was seemingly not enough for pre-dialogue consultations and preparations. The Cameroonian dialogue was not all successful due to the conspicuous absence of key separatists, federalists, activists and opposition figures who play a vital role in the Anglophone Crisis. Separatist leaders boycotted the dialogue process, refusing to participate in any deliberations or commit to its outcomes. The lack of trust in government’s intentions and concerns for security and safety led to separatists and federalists alike in Cameroon and abroad, declining invitations to participate in the week-long talks.
The dialogue agenda has been criticized for failing to incorporate diverse views. For instance, the government meticulously avoided discussions around federalism or separation on the agenda. In addition, efforts to persuade the government to conduct the dialogue on neutral territory with third-party mediation as a way of fostering greater inclusion were rejected. Moreover, it appears the dialogue served merely as a smokescreen for international observers, with no genuine intention of finding a lasting solution.
Women and young girls have disproportionately suffered the consequences of the Anglophone Crisis. For example, young girls have been forced to have sex to get through security checkpoints, while female advocates for peace have encountered reprisals. Despite these hardships, the affected lower-class and marginalized women were not invited to the national dialogue, which saw the participation of upper class women and influential female politicians.
Furthermore, the exclusion of key civil society groups from Cameroon’s national dialogue has sparked concerns and condemnation, with many attributing the dialogue’s ultimate failure to this lack of inclusivity. The limited inclusion and engagement of experts throughout the dialogue process have also cast doubt on its ability to deliver.
Persistent Patterns of Inadequate Inclusion in other African Peacebuilding Dialogues
The issue of inclusion in Cameroon’s dialogue reflects other African dialogues in many ways. Several national dialogues across Africa have faced challenges related to inclusivity, including those in Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, South Sudan and Zimbabwe.
The pattern of excluding women in dialogue processes as seen in Cameroon’s dialogue, was recently reflected in Chad, where the exclusion of young girls and female activists in the national dialogue affected inclusion and undermined the dialogue recommendations. The contentious issue of engaging key opposition leaders in dialogue processes has been mirrored in South Sudan where the dialogue faced similar setbacks due to transparency.
Similarly, Mali encountered difficulties in fostering inclusive participation in the 2017 national dialogue, even with attempts to organised decentralized meetings. The Malian government have rejected proposals for international mediation to organize a meeting in a neutral ground, asrequested by rebels. This pattern of exclusion has also been observed in the Democratic Republic of Congo where rebel groups have refused to participate in talks, citing distrust of the government, concerns about their safety, and a lack of meaningful engagement with their demands.
In Zimbabwe, calls for a dialogue in 2018 and subsequent attempts to organize one in 2019 and 2020 were marred by a lack of genuine inclusion. The dialogue process in Zimbabwe primarily involved political parties and elites with little consideration for the inclusion of civil society and peacebuilding experts. These examples highlight the recurrent challenge of inadequate inclusion in peacebuilding dialogues across Africa.
Lessons for Future Dialogues
As the continent continue to grapple with various socio-political challenges, it is essential to reflect on the lessons learned from past national dialogues to shape more effective processes in the future. National dialogue processes in Africa can become more effective and successful iforganisers build trust through social cohesion and create an enabling environment to ensure the broad-based and genuine participation of relevant stakeholders, including women, separatists, rebels, youth, and peacebuilding experts.
Furthermore, dialogue stakeholders should consider hosting dialogues in neutral venues with third-party mediation. This approach may be helpful for dialogue processes with trust and security concerns as it addresses security issues and mistrust between parties. This may create a more conducive environment for inclusive participation of stakeholders who may otherwise be hesitant to attend.
It is also important for dialogue agendas to focus on tackling the underlying drivers of conflict, such as political marginalization, social inequalities, and historical grievances. This would involve creating platforms for open and honest discussion, acknowledging past mistakes, and committing to concrete actions for redress.
National actors may also consider maintaining an ongoing dialogue process that allows for regular reviews, adjustments, and follow-up, rather than treating national dialogues as a one-off event. This will ensure that any issues that arise during the implementation of dialogue resolutions can be addressed and resolved in a timely manner.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the success of national dialogues in conflict-affected states like Cameroon, DRC,Mali, Zimbabwe and others in Africa, heavily relies on embracing inclusivity, transparency, and trust-building measures. Creating an enabling environment and ensuring broad participation from all relevant stakeholders, including women, youth, separatists, rebels, and peacebuilding experts, is crucial in fostering lasting peace through dialogues in the region. Learning from the shortcomings of past dialogues might enable some African countries to move towards a more inclusive and effective approach in resolving conflicts through national dialogues.
Author
Chris Begealawuh
