Political elites may debate the technicalities. Analysts may parse constitutional clauses. But the street — the marketplace, the taxi stand, the university corridor — understands power in simpler terms: Who decides? Who commands? Who can act when the system trembles? Any office that cannot answer these questions clearly will struggle to inspire confidence, no matter how grand its title
By Timothy Enongene
Guest Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews
Testing the waters again.
YAOUNDÉ March 24, 2026 – From the guarded corridors of Etoudi comes the latest political experiment: the possible return of a Vice President. Not as a pillar of shared power. Not as a constitutional safeguard. But as a carefully packaged symbol — polished, presented, and projected as reform.
For those who still believe titles equal authority, the announcement may sound like progress. For those who understand how power has historically been structured, it sounds like something else entirely: a familiar script being read from a very old playbook.
A Crown Without a Kingdom
What is being proposed is not a Vice Presidency in the true constitutional sense. It is an office reportedly stripped of decisive authority, stripped of independent mandate, and stripped — most critically — of any automatic right to succession
In political systems where institutions function, the Vice President is not an assistant with ceremonial prestige. They are the constitutional bridge between stability and chaos. They are the guarantee that leadership transition will not be decided in backroom negotiations or sudden improvisation. Remove that guarantee, and the office becomes something different. A badge of proximity. A position of visibility. But not a seat of power.
History Is Not Sleeping
This country has seen this story before. During the federal era, the Vice Presidency represented balance — an acknowledgement that the state was built on multiple political identities. That structure did not disappear by accident. It was dismantled in a deliberate move toward centralized authority. The office vanished, and with it, a visible mechanism of executive inclusion.
Now, decades later, the same office may return — but possibly without the constitutional backbone that once gave it meaning. Is this restoration? Or reinvention?
The Politics of Pressure Valves
In moments of political strain, governments often reach for symbolic adjustments. They create positions. Rename institutions. Announce reforms. These measures can calm tempers, shift headlines, and buy time.
But when structures remain unchanged, symbolism becomes a pressure valve rather than a solution. It releases frustration temporarily while leaving the deeper architecture of governance untouched.
The danger is not just that such moves fail.
The danger is that they can intensify disillusionment — convincing citizens that participation is being invited without influence being granted.
Elite Competition, Public Distraction
If the proposed office emerges without real constitutional weight, the likely outcome is predictable. Political attention will drift toward the race for appointment — who will occupy the new seat, who will gain access, who will benefit from the symbolism.
Meanwhile, the larger questions will remain unanswered: Who holds real executive authority? Who shapes national direction? Who guarantees continuity in moments of crisis? Titles can energize ambition. But they do not automatically redistribute power.
When reform becomes theatre
Nations in transition are judged not by the number of offices they create, but by the courage with which they redesign the rules that govern them. Cosmetic innovation can produce impressive ceremonies. It can generate speeches, headlines, and diplomatic talking points. Yet history tends to judge reforms by their consequences, not their announcements.
If a Vice Presidency returns without succession rights, without decisive constitutional authority, and without the capacity to influence governance outcomes, it risks becoming a stage prop in a national drama that demands structural change.
The Street Already Knows
Political elites may debate the technicalities. Analysts may parse constitutional clauses. But the street — the marketplace, the taxi stand, the university corridor — understands power in simpler terms: Who decides? Who commands? Who can act when the system trembles? Any office that cannot answer these questions clearly will struggle to inspire confidence, no matter how grand its title.
In times of uncertainty, citizens are not looking for decorated positions. They are looking for institutions that alter realities. And history has shown, time and again, that when symbolism arrives in place of substance, frustration does not disappear — it reorganizes.
Timothy Enongene
Guest Editor-in-Chief, The Independentistnews
Leave feedback about this