For forty-three years, Cameroon has functioned under a political system that most analysts, jurists, civil society organizations, and international observers describe as deeply authoritarian. Power is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the executive, while institutions that should serve as checks and balances are weakened, politicized, or hollowed out. The political environment is tightly controlled, ensuring that dissent is contained, electoral competition is neutralized, and governance remains a one-way structure flowing from the presidency downward. In such a context, when the government announces a “historic” or “progressive” appointment even one involving a highly respected magistrate many Cameroonians understand instinctively that the gesture changes nothing fundamental. Changing the face at the top does not change the architecture beneath it. The elevation of Marie-Claire Dieudonné Nseng-Elang to the position of Attorney General near the Supreme Court is being presented as a breakthrough moment, a sign of modernization and renewal, yet many citizens immediately recognize it as another reminder that in an entrenched authoritarian system, institutions cannot breathe freely no matter who occupies the leadership roles.
The core concern repeated by critics is that Cameroon’s institutions are structurally incapable of operating independently because they are embedded in a political order meticulously designed to ensure executive dominance. In Cameroon today, the entire judicial hierarchy from prosecutors to judges of the highest jurisdictions falls under the direct influence of the presidency, which controls appointments, promotions, and sanctions. This system produces an environment in which legal actors often act under implicit pressure to align with political expectations, especially in cases involving opposition figures or politically sensitive matters. The judiciary cannot serve as a neutral arbiter when its leadership is not protected from political consequences. Parliament fares no better: dominated by the ruling party, it functions more as a forum for approving executive decisions than as a body capable of scrutinizing, challenging, or blocking government proposals. Legislative debates rarely result in substantive changes or meaningful oversight, reinforcing the perception that parliament exists primarily to legitimize executive initiatives rather than to represent citizens.
This lack of institutional independence extends to the electoral sphere, where bodies tasked with guaranteeing credible elections are widely criticized for their proximity to the ruling party. ELECAM, Cameroon’s electoral commission, is frequently cited by observers as lacking neutrality, a perception intensified by decades of contested elections and a persistent absence of transparency. Cameroonians have grown accustomed to electoral outcomes that appear predetermined, with the process itself reinforcing the power structure rather than reflecting the people’s will. Meanwhile, civic space continues to shrink. Journalists are pressured or censored, activists face harassment or legal obstacles, opposition parties struggle to hold meetings without government interference, and public demonstrations are restricted or violently dispersed. The result is a public sphere in which citizens cannot freely express their political views, limiting democratic participation and reinforcing authoritarian habits.
Even decentralized governance, which in theory should give regions and municipalities more autonomy, remains tightly bound to the central executive. Local authorities often depend financially and politically on the central government, making true regional independence nearly impossible. The decentralization framework becomes a rhetorical tool rather than a practical one. Every layer of government, even at the local level, is conditioned to follow directives from above, ensuring that no part of the system can develop genuine autonomy or challenge central authority.
Against this backdrop, the appointment of a new Attorney General even one of impeccable qualifications becomes largely symbolic. Government communications frame the choice as proof of modernization, inclusivity, and the renewal of public institutions. But for many Cameroonians, these announcements resemble a familiar pattern: ceremonial gestures masquerading as reform. A competent magistrate may assume the role, but the institution remains trapped within the restrictive political design that has governed Cameroon for decades. One individual, regardless of integrity or expertise, cannot transform a structure that was built specifically to prevent disruption of executive control. The centralized influence, political alignments, and systemic opacity that define the judiciary’s functioning cannot be overturned simply by placing a new person at the top.
For citizens who have lived through decades of contested elections, weakened institutions, delayed justice, and the routine disregard for constitutional checks and balances, such appointments do not signal change they signal continuity. Many Cameroonians have experienced firsthand the consequences of a system where political arbitrations replace legal ones, where accountability mechanisms are ineffective, and where institutional roles exist in theory but not in practice. The justice system, parliament, and electoral bodies often appear more invested in maintaining the status quo than in protecting citizens’ rights. When appointments are made within this environment, they serve more as attempts to refurbish the surface of the regime than to address its structural foundations.
The heart of the problem remains the same: a country where power has not changed hands in more than four decades, where a single leadership circle dominates every branch of the state, and where political reforms when they occur are initiated by the executive rather than demanded or shaped by citizens. In such a political landscape, institutional appointments take on a specific meaning. They do not symbolize transformation or democratization; they symbolize the perpetuation of the same political logic that has governed Cameroon since the early 1980s. They are tools of continuity, not instruments of change.
Cameroon possesses extraordinary human talent brilliant jurists, administrators, scholars, and professionals capable of building strong, responsive, and transparent institutions. But no amount of individual competence can overcome a system deliberately engineered to centralize power rather than distribute it, to limit institutional autonomy rather than encourage it, and to prioritize political loyalty over national service. Until the judiciary is structurally independent, until parliament is able to exercise real oversight, until electoral bodies operate free from executive influence, until civic space is genuinely protected, and until institutions serve the nation rather than the preservation of a forty-three-year regime, appointments no matter how symbolic or celebrated will remain superficial adjustments on a deeply authoritarian foundation. Cameroonians deserve far more than gestures. They deserve institutions that function in their interest, reflect their will, and safeguard their rights not institutions designed to secure the survival of a political order that has long overstayed its legitimacy.
0 comments