REJECT THE DECORATION: A CALL TO DEFY THE VP TRAP

Creating a Vice Presidency without decisive authority risks producing the appearance of inclusion while postponing deeper constitutional conversations. For communities that have long demanded meaningful participation in governance, symbolism alone is unlikely to restore confidence

By Timothy Enongene
Guest Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews
23 March 2026

History is unforgiving to those who ignore its warnings. As speculation grows about the possible creation of an “Anglophone Vice President,” the message to leaders across our territory must be firm and unmistakable: do not accept symbolism in place of substance.

If the proposed office emerges without real executive authority — without the constitutional power to act for the President and, above all, without a guaranteed right of succession — then it is not a meaningful reform. It is a political instrument designed to absorb pressure while leaving the structure of power untouched.

Any leader who steps into such a role must understand the consequences. Without constitutional safeguards, the position risks becoming one of visibility without influence — responsibility without authority.

The Litmus Test for Leadership

Every political figure reportedly being considered for this post should be asked a simple and direct question: “If the President is unable to govern tomorrow, do you have the legal authority to lead?”

If the answer is no, then the office being offered is not a Vice Presidency in the true constitutional sense. It is a supporting role within an unchanged system. This is why many voices are now calling on Anglophone political actors, traditional authorities, and community elites to take a clear public position:

1. Reject Appointment Without Constitutional Protection. An office created or filled by executive discretion alone — without entrenched constitutional succession rights — can be reshaped or withdrawn just as easily. Sustainable political inclusion requires institutional guarantees, not temporary arrangements.
2. Learn From Historical Experience. Promises of balanced governance have appeared before in different forms. Structural change must be measured not by announcements or titles but by the durability of power-sharing mechanisms. Leaders must evaluate whether new proposals genuinely alter governance dynamics or merely reframe them.
3. Maintain Accountability and Transparency
   Competition for new positions can distract from broader national questions about decentralization, constitutional reform, and conflict resolution. Public debate should remain focused on substantive change rather than on individual appointments.

Symbolic Inclusion vs. Structural Reform

At its core, the debate is not about one office or one individual. It is about whether political reforms address root grievances or simply manage perception.

Creating a Vice Presidency without decisive authority risks producing the appearance of inclusion while postponing deeper constitutional conversations. For communities that have long demanded meaningful participation in governance, symbolism alone is unlikely to restore confidence.

Dignity Over Decoration

Nations in crisis are shaped by the choices of their leaders. Accepting positions that lack real influence may provide short-term prestige but can carry long-term political consequences.

The challenge before today’s leadership is therefore not merely whether to accept a title, but whether that title represents genuine authority, responsibility, and the capacity to shape national direction.

Reforms that redistribute power can open new chapters in political history. Reforms that only rename existing structures risk becoming footnotes.

The decision now lies with those being called to serve — and with the people who will judge whether service strengthens dignity or merely decorates dependency.

Timothy Enongene
Guest Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews