THE ILLUSIONS OF DECENTRALIZATION: Deconstructing LRC’s Structural Inability to Reform

Calls for decentralization often fail to inspire confidence within the independence movement. The issue, they argue, is not the management of the existing system but the legitimacy of the system itself. Until that fundamental question is addressed, decentralization will continue to be viewed not as a solution but as an illusion—one that promises transformation while leaving the underlying structure unchanged.

By Carl Sanders Guest Writer, The Independentist News, Soho, London

Decentralization as a Diplomatic Shield

Whenever international pressure intensifies regarding the conflict in Ambazonia, the government of La République du Cameroun invariably turns to a familiar narrative. Officials point to decentralization reforms, the Special Status granted to the Northwest and Southwest regions, and the recommendations that emerged from the 2019 Grand National Dialogue as evidence that meaningful political solutions are already being implemented.

To international partners, diplomats, and multilateral institutions, these measures are presented as proof that the state has acknowledged the concerns of the Anglophone population and is actively addressing them through constitutional and administrative reforms. Yet for many Ambazonians, these initiatives are viewed less as solutions than as political instruments designed to manage international criticism while preserving the existing structure of power.

The Architecture of Centralized Authority

The fundamental weakness of decentralization in Cameroon lies not in its implementation but in the constitutional architecture within which it operates. Political authority remains overwhelmingly concentrated in Yaoundé. Governors, Senior Divisional Officers, Divisional Officers, and other key administrative officials continue to derive their authority directly from presidential appointments. These officials exercise significant influence over regional and local institutions and possess extensive powers regarding public administration, security, and governance.

As a result, local and regional bodies operate within a framework where ultimate authority remains concentrated at the center. The existence of elected representatives does not necessarily translate into meaningful autonomy when decisive powers remain under the control of officials appointed by the executive branch. From an Ambazonian perspective, this creates a fundamental contradiction. Decentralization promises local empowerment while preserving a system built upon centralized control.

The Limits of Special Status

The Special Status granted to the Northwest and Southwest regions was promoted as a major concession designed to address longstanding grievances. In theory, it acknowledged the unique historical, legal, and educational characteristics of the former British Southern Cameroons. In practice, however, critics argue that the reforms have fallen far short of expectations.

The institutions created under the Special Status framework possess limited authority over many of the issues that lie at the heart of the conflict. Questions relating to security policy, military operations, judicial reform, constitutional arrangements, and broader political status remain outside their control. Consequently, many Ambazonians view the Special Status as symbolic rather than transformative. It recognizes difference without fundamentally redistributing power.

Economics and the Question of Control

The debate extends beyond political administration into economics. For many Ambazonian activists and scholars, the issue is not simply how resources are distributed but who controls the decisions governing those resources. The oil fields, agricultural wealth, forests, and other economic assets of Southern Cameroons continue to operate within national frameworks controlled from Yaoundé.

Critics argue that local communities exercise limited influence over the management and allocation of revenues generated from their regions. Whether one agrees with this interpretation or not, the perception of economic marginalization remains a significant factor in sustaining political grievances. The conflict therefore involves not only questions of identity and governance but also questions of economic power and accountability.

Regional Assemblies Without Power

The regional assemblies established under the decentralization framework were intended to demonstrate a commitment to local governance. Yet their practical impact has remained limited.

They possess neither the authority to determine security policy nor the capacity to resolve the political disputes that gave rise to the conflict. They cannot halt military operations, fundamentally reform legal institutions, or negotiate constitutional arrangements. Their role remains largely administrative and consultative.

For many observers, this reality exposes the limits of the current reform process. Institutions may exist, but their effectiveness depends upon the powers they are permitted to exercise.

Reform or Structural Constraint?

The central question is whether the Cameroonian state is unwilling to decentralize or structurally incapable of doing so. Supporters of the government’s approach argue that decentralization is a gradual process requiring time, resources, and institutional development. Critics counter that meaningful decentralization cannot occur within a system whose constitutional foundations are designed to preserve centralized authority. This debate lies at the heart of the conflict.

If meaningful autonomy can emerge through reform, then continued engagement with existing institutions may offer a pathway forward. If the system is structurally incapable of transferring significant power away from the center, then demands for more fundamental political change become easier to understand.

Why Ambazonians Remain Skeptical

This is why many Ambazonians remain unconvinced by promises of decentralization. Their skepticism is not based solely on current policy failures but on decades of historical experience. Successive reforms, commissions, dialogues, and constitutional initiatives have repeatedly promised greater local participation while leaving the central structure of power largely untouched. For many, the issue is no longer whether decentralization can be improved but whether it was ever intended to transform the political relationship between Southern Cameroons and La République du Cameroun in the first place.

Beyond Administrative Reform

Ultimately, the debate over decentralization is a debate about political power. Can a highly centralized state genuinely devolve authority while preserving its existing structure? Can administrative reforms address a conflict rooted in competing understandings of sovereignty, identity, and self-determination? For many Ambazonians, the answer remains no.

That is why calls for decentralization often fail to inspire confidence within the independence movement. The issue, they argue, is not the management of the existing system but the legitimacy of the system itself. Until that fundamental question is addressed, decentralization will continue to be viewed not as a solution but as an illusion—one that promises transformation while leaving the underlying structure unchanged.

Carl Sanders
Guest Writer, The Independentist News, Soho, London