ON ONENESS AND INDIVISIBILITY
Having read a lot of literature over the past twelve months, I have the following impressions:
1. Anglophones say of themselves that they're just being who they are. If they're not happy, they make it known. They do not think that they need to seek (let alone be granted) permission to say what they feel.
2. Francophones say of Anglophones that they are radical and primarily attached to a colonial past. Some say that Anglophones can express their grievances but should only do so within the remit of what the law provides. Others say that Anglophones should forget the misfortune that colonialism was.
3. Francophones say of themselves that they are "republicain". I don't know a word that exactly translates "republicain" but loosely, it means attached to the strict and unquestioned respect of state institutions... Doing things the way the laws and institutions expect them to.
4. Anglophones say of francophones that they are weak (French: lâche) and selfish. They think that the French colonial legacy conditioned francophones to FEAR to question even an obviously oppressive impasse that masks as stability.
Did I say that these are impressions? Thank goodness I did. But there may be some truth in them.
Anglophones define themselves from inside and outwards towards to the State as if to say the State is an emanation of the people. Does the logic and legacy of "indirect rule" come to mind?
Francophones define themselves with reference to the expectations of forces (the law, l'esprit de la république etc) that are external to them, then proceed inwards to the individual. The law/state dictates and they limit themselves to it's dictates and condition themselves to conform. Does "Direct Rule" come to mind?
The fundamental law says Cameroon is ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.
Francophones take this as a standard, basic and unchangeable principle, then format their thinking and actions on that premise. CONFORMISM
Considering the impressions above, Anglophones think that there are fundamental differences between francophones and themselves and try to generate/engender a thought process that would lead to the institutionalization and constitutional reflection/accomodation of those differences. DIALECTICISM
Conclusion... ONE AND INDIVISIBLE as inscribed in the fundamental law should be seen not as a statement of fact but as an aspiration. BUT IF ONENESS IS ASPIRATIONAL, then DIVISIBILITY IS LATENT and shall remain so until such a model of community management emerges that all the pieces involved are satisfied with.
1. Anglophones say of themselves that they're just being who they are. If they're not happy, they make it known. They do not think that they need to seek (let alone be granted) permission to say what they feel.
2. Francophones say of Anglophones that they are radical and primarily attached to a colonial past. Some say that Anglophones can express their grievances but should only do so within the remit of what the law provides. Others say that Anglophones should forget the misfortune that colonialism was.
3. Francophones say of themselves that they are "republicain". I don't know a word that exactly translates "republicain" but loosely, it means attached to the strict and unquestioned respect of state institutions... Doing things the way the laws and institutions expect them to.
4. Anglophones say of francophones that they are weak (French: lâche) and selfish. They think that the French colonial legacy conditioned francophones to FEAR to question even an obviously oppressive impasse that masks as stability.
Did I say that these are impressions? Thank goodness I did. But there may be some truth in them.
Anglophones define themselves from inside and outwards towards to the State as if to say the State is an emanation of the people. Does the logic and legacy of "indirect rule" come to mind?
Francophones define themselves with reference to the expectations of forces (the law, l'esprit de la république etc) that are external to them, then proceed inwards to the individual. The law/state dictates and they limit themselves to it's dictates and condition themselves to conform. Does "Direct Rule" come to mind?
The fundamental law says Cameroon is ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.
Francophones take this as a standard, basic and unchangeable principle, then format their thinking and actions on that premise. CONFORMISM
Considering the impressions above, Anglophones think that there are fundamental differences between francophones and themselves and try to generate/engender a thought process that would lead to the institutionalization and constitutional reflection/accomodation of those differences. DIALECTICISM
Conclusion... ONE AND INDIVISIBLE as inscribed in the fundamental law should be seen not as a statement of fact but as an aspiration. BUT IF ONENESS IS ASPIRATIONAL, then DIVISIBILITY IS LATENT and shall remain so until such a model of community management emerges that all the pieces involved are satisfied with.
Comments
Post a Comment