BY CANUTE TANGWA (February 16, 2008)
Traditional authority in Cameroon and elsewhere is shrouded in myths. The Fon, Chief or King never dies. He disappears! The King is dead, long live the King! A Fon eating in public is as rare as the tear of a dog. Shaking hands with the Fon in public is an abomination, to say the least. This explains why Fon Achirimbi of Bafut allegedly had reservations shaking hands with a female British royalty! Everywhere a Fon goes, his subjects and those who know prostrate. The King is God’s representative on earth. Almost all peoples extol the divine right of Kings. This notion has been abusively stretched in Africa to include sanguinary dictators.
In most traditional settings, the Fon is the number one judge, seer and medicine man. This is so because upon enthronement, all powers are conferred on him. Consequently, he is the protector and defender of traditional institutions and customary law. He incarnates traditional authority. As such, the Fon is not just anybody. He is somebody who in yesteryears used to lead his people in battle. He was the number one warrior. A warrior king in the 18th and early 19th century was common currency.
The Great Kuve Likenye of the Bakweris, who fought the Germans to a standstill was a warrior Chief. Bamoum expeditions to Nsoland were led by Sultans. Fon Mbinglo of Nso was a feared warrior who fought the Germans and subdued surrounding tribes until he met his waterloo in Din-Noni. The chivalrous Balis who introduced Calvary warfare in the Grass fields are not left out. Nowadays, a warrior king is an embarrassment. Though in our present political dispensation some Fons or Chiefs lead their Nchindas and palace eunuchs in political battles.
By its nature, traditional authority is conservative. Within a traditional set up, change is slow and there is the tendency to jealously guard what has been acquired for generations. Traditional authority is the repository of oral and written traditional history. This reasoning explains why traditional authority is an auxiliary of the administration, any administration, and the overly cautious nature of Fons/Chiefs towards new political formations.
Multiparty democracy, 1990 version, embarrassed many a traditional ruler in Cameroon. They faced an understandable dilemma: to side with the popular/progressive forces clamouring for change or with the status quo/reactionary forces. Some traditional rulers adopted the third option: neutrality. The Fon of Nso for sometime was the harbinger of this option. But this was ultimately to his detriment because middle-of-the-road auxiliaries of the administration were viewed with suspicion especially in an SDF stronghold like Bui Division.
However, certain powerful potentates like the Lamido of Rey Bouba and the Sultan of Foumban openly sided with the ruling CPDM party. Other less powerful but influential traditional rulers like the Fon of Mankon SAN Angwafor, the Paramount ruler of the Bakweris Chief SML Endeley and the Paramount ruler of the Bafaws Nfon VE Mukete declared allegiance to the status quo. Certain powerful Fons like Abumbi and Galega of Bafut and Bali respectively became members of the CPDM Central Committee. It is their inalienable right.
However, the consequences of a Fon’s participation in politics can be positive or negative depending on the following: whether the people of a given area belong to the same political shade as the Fon or Chief; the structure of the society in question i.e. segmentary or centralized with a powerful overlord; horizontal or vertical relationship between the Fon/Chief and his subjects; large emigrant or indigenous population; strong or loose respect for tradition; existing chieftaincy squabbles that politicians can exploit and vying for elective office by a Fon/Chief.
However, when a Fon descends from his throne and vies for elective office with his subjects, mere mortals in the Fon’s eyes, the best cannot be expected. Fon Doh Gah Gwanyin, CPDM, Member of Parliament and Mayor of Balikumbat contested elections with his subjects. He won and some of his subjects who belong to the opposition SDF cried foul. Apparently, a Fon does not tolerate open defiance from a mere subject. The late John Kohtem dared challenge his Fon in public during a meeting between political parties and Governor Koumpa Issa of the North West Province. The wheels of justice still have to proof whether the Fon ordered the killing of Kohtem.
While waiting for the court’s judgement, it would not be out of place to ponder on the possible erosion of traditional authority. The Balikumbats would never hold traditional authority with esteem and awe as before. The Fon appearing in court in a criminal matter is enough to water down his stature even if at the end he extracts a no-guilty verdict from the court. The Mukete trial in Kumba is an apt example of how a reputation built over the years can be shattered in the twinkle of an eye.
During and after the Fon Doh trial, there will be enough reason to review the role and powers of Fons in a typical traditional set up like the North West province. Fons might no longer have the power to sneeze and the people answer mbe. Respect for Fons would wane and as such certain cherished traditional values would be abandoned. Another scenario would be that Balikumbats and North Westerners in general and peoples with similar tradition would reassert themselves and lay down new customary rules on the crowning or appointment of Fons. On the other hand, the Government might quickly step in to restore sanity by creating a House of Chiefs or appointing Fons/Chiefs to the yet to be set up Senate.
Respect for rights is good. A little curtailing of rights for the common good is not bad. Hence, Fons/Chiefs as auxiliaries of the administration with seemingly handsome salaries should stay in their palaces and proffer advice to politicians. They should stay above the fray.
Comments