Musonge Commission and the Federalism "Problem"

Following a meet-the-people tour in the North West Region recently, the Secretariat of the National Commission for Bilingualism and Multiculturalism published a report of grievances raised by the population as well as proposals to resolve the crisis.

Beside the unusual promptness in publishing the report – just four days after the end of the tour, the persistence of using a consultative body to address an eminently political problem is a disturbing curiosity. It is even all the more disturbing that the National Assembly, a political body by essence, has, until this time, refused to address the problem.

Anyway, that’s what comes with the sovereignty of a country… the ability to choose to defy logic and common sense and not have to explain to anyone.

That said, the second proposal captured my attention… for various reasons.

FIRST, it showed that it is finally acceptable for a government institution to make reference to federalism, even if that’s in reported speech. It is important to note that sixteen months ago, people were either arrested or their freedom was threatened just because they supported federalism. The incriminating expression used at the time was “apologie du federalism”. Since then, the laws in Cameroon have not changed, but government has regrettably lost its monopoly of violence and international partners are peering more closely. If these are the reasons why federalism has lost its taboo status, the orientation that progress on the issue will take will determine government’s good faith and ability to adjust to the political aspirations of the population and to address the causes of the crisis IN TRUTH.

SECOND, the English version of the second proposal is not quite an exact rendition of the french version.

ENGLISH: Examine issues concerning federalism in our country

 

FRENCH: De débattre des problèmes relatifs à l’institution du fédéralisme dans notre pays

 

The French version would more appropriately be translated as “to discuss problems related to the institution of federalism in our country”. The English version could better have been translated as “examiner les questions relatives au fédéralisme dans notre pays”.

The following come to my mind

• Looking at the structure of both texts, it seems obvious that one is a translation of the other. But which of them is the source text?
• I noted in a previous article that no bill has ever been tabled before parliament in Cameroon for which the French version is a translation; and that in Cameroon when there is difference in interpretation of the same law in its French and English versions, reference is made to the French version. Therefore, i am inclined to think that the source language text is French and that since the content of the proposal under review is different from one language to another, the French version should be considered prevalent.

THIRD, while the English version proposes an “examination of issues”, the French version proposes a “debate on problems”. In the French version, Federalism is presented as a model of government “that has problems” or to which problems are associated and the proposal registered is to discuss the “problems”.

Going on from usual practice, any work that ensues from the Commission’s report will refer to the French version in order to determine Terms of Reference and thus, on the specific matter of the second proposal, will seek to establish that Federalism is a problem.

I listened to some of the contributions made and grievances raised by participants during the tour. All were made in English.

Why the prevalent report should be in French for a meeting that took place largely in English does not seem innocent and much less so if the the report in French corrupts the essence of the proposal that was made.

In my recollection, it was proposed to the Commission to recommend that federalism be seriously considered as an option that would not only be acceptable to the population but also resolve many governance related issues in the long term and contribute institutionally to the preservation of the Anglophone heritage.

Of course, I congratulate the Commission on the fact that it published its report in both English and French (almost) simultaneously. However, of all state institutions, the National Commission for Bilingualism and Multiculturalism should be the one institution whose translations should not be approximate unless the approximation was deliberate.

Everyone knows how many lives have been lost, how many people have been arrested, detained for long periods then released, how many people have been displaced either internally or internationally, how much damage has been done to nation-building, how much the economy has been affected and our country’s human rights record has been damaged just because someone said “THERE’S NO ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM”.

I think Cameroonians in general and Anglophones in particular deserve better than a new round of ruse.