THE FEDERALISM ILLUSION: A NECESSARY CORRECTION TO KAMTO’S MISREADING OF HISTORY

The people of the former Southern Cameroons are not engaged in a debate over labels. They are confronting the consequences of a historical restructuring that altered the foundation of their political existence.

By Ali Dan Ismael
Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews

THE MOMENT OF EXPOSURE

There are statements that merely miss the mark. And there are those that expose a deeper failure—of understanding, of clarity, or of intellectual honesty. The recent remarks by Maurice Kamto belong to the latter category.

At a time when precision is not optional but essential, Kamto has chosen to frame a structural political question in the language of convenience—recycling terms, assumptions, and conclusions that collapse under the weight of history. This is not a minor error. It is a fundamental misreading of the problem itself.

THERE IS NO “ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM”

There is no such thing as an “Anglophone problem.” What is casually—and often deliberately—described as an “Anglophone crisis” is, in reality, the unresolved political question of the former Southern Cameroons. This distinction is not cosmetic. It is foundational.

“Anglophone” refers to language.
Southern Cameroons refers to a defined people, territory, and political entity.

To substitute one for the other is not simplification. It is erasure. If Kamto does not understand this, then his analysis is built on sand. If he does understand it and chooses otherwise, then his framing is deliberate. Either way, the consequence is the same: misrepresentation of reality.

THE MYTH OF ELITE FAILURE

Kamto’s claim that elites from these regions have failed their people is an argument that collapses upon inspection. It suggests that the crisis is the result of weak advocacy, lack of unity, or internal dysfunction. But this is a convenient fiction.

The issue is not that elites failed to act. The issue is that the system within which they operate was never designed to accommodate or preserve the autonomy of the former Southern Cameroons. From the outset, institutions were centralized, agreements were diluted, and structures were altered without parity.

To blame individuals for the outcomes of a structurally imbalanced system is not analysis. It is deflection.

THE 1972 DECEPTION

More troubling is Kamto’s reliance on the 1972 Cameroonian constitutional referendum as evidence of a broadly accepted transformation.

The 1961 arrangement was a federation between two political entities: La République du Cameroun and the former Southern Cameroons. It was not a cultural accommodation; it was a political union between distinct territories.

The events of 1972 did not represent a neutral evolution of that union. They represented a unilateral dismantling of its foundation.

No amount of retrospective justification can change this fact. To present that moment as consensual is to ignore the imbalance of power that defined it. To rely on it as a basis for present arguments is to build on a contested and compromised foundation.

FEDERALISM WITHOUT MEMORY

Kamto now advances federalism as a path forward, but this raises an unavoidable question: what is the value of proposing a system that was previously dismantled—without addressing the conditions under which it was destroyed?

Federalism is not a rhetorical device. It is a structural commitment that requires mutual recognition, enforceable guarantees, and, above all, trust. That trust was broken.

The original federation was not merely abandoned—it was systematically erased. To propose its return without confronting that history is not reform. It is recycling.

A STRUCTURAL QUESTION, NOT A LINGUISTIC ONE

What Kamto’s intervention ultimately reveals is a persistent misunderstanding—or misrepresentation—of the nature of the conflict.

This is not a dispute between English and French speakers. It is not a regional complaint about marginalization. It is not a matter of elite coordination. It is a structural question rooted in the fate of a distinct political entity.

It concerns the terms under which a federation was formed, the manner in which it was altered, and the consequences of that alteration. To reduce this to an “Anglophone issue” is to misdiagnose the problem entirely.

PRECISION IS NOT OPTIONAL

Public figures who seek to lead national conversations carry a responsibility that extends beyond rhetoric. They must name things accurately, interpret history honestly, and propose solutions grounded in reality.

On this matter, Kamto has not met that standard. Whether through oversight or intention, his framing obscures more than it clarifies. And in a conflict where clarity is essential, that is not a neutral act.

FINAL VERDICT: THE RECORD MUST BE SET STRAIGHT

The people of the former Southern Cameroons are not engaged in a debate over labels. They are confronting the consequences of a historical restructuring that altered the foundation of their political existence.

No reframing—whether through linguistic substitution, blame redistribution, or selective historical recall—can change that reality.

The issue remains what it has always been: a question of structure, a question of history, and a question that cannot be resolved by terminological convenience.

Ali Dan Ismael
Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews