Contribution of Cameroonian Diaspora in the Anglophone Crisis and its effect on Homeland
Cameroonian Diaspora has contributed a lot in the ongoing conflict between the southern Cameroon and the Cameroon government.
Firstly the Cameroonian Diaspora have delegated Authorizes to take Care of the present situation that’s is make a president to run their own government to show how serious they are to achieve their objective which is to have independence from French Cameroon and the French Cameroon have done everything possible to frustrate their effort by arresting their president (Sisiku Julius Ayuk Tabe) January 5, 2018 and sentence him to life time imprisonment saying that he is threat of what he preach and calling him a terrorists. so due to his arrest and detention many actions have been taking to try and release him but to no avail Also many meetings were held with the activists but they were not interested in whatever the French government had to say unless they release all the members of the interim government they held captive in their custody furthermore this actions have cause a lot of tension in the country since in every day that sounds like a big day in Cameroon is a ghost town in southern Cameroon so no one take part in any important ceremony organized by French government in southern Cameroon if not you are considered a “a black leg” and you can be killed by the activists fighters if identified (Salome, 2018)
FURTHER READINGS: THE ROLE OF THE DIASPORA IN THE ANGLOPHONE CRISES OF CAMEROON
Again after the arrest of former president a new president was assigned, Samuel Ikome Sako is an Ambazonian politician and the president of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia, an unrecognized proto-state on the world stage. He was elected Interim President a month after the first president, Julius Ayuk Tabe, was abducted in Nigeria and illegally brought to Cameroon.( Cameroon News Agency, 2018) Former President Sisiku Ayuk Tabe attempted to release Dr Sako from duty while in detention in Yaoundé in May 2019, reigniting the Ambazonian leadership struggle.This struggle for power has weaken the struggle and its objectives and has led to fall and of many separatists fighters in the homeland.
Nowadays the struggle is view as a means of livelihood whereby the so separatists fighters kidnap civilian whom they think is wealthy enough and demand for ransom from their families and if their condition is not met they might kill the hostage and those in the diasporas keeping supporting them by sending them money to acquire arms which they use to do their dirty works,diasporas in my opinion have really lead to the lose of many innocent lives
Additionally, how have social media platforms been engaged in protests? (Poell & Van Dijck, 2018) shed further insight on how the usage of social media influences protest climate. They discover, via their investigation of social media practices, that leadership and collective identities play a significant part in online conflict, and that the usage of social media modifies protest actions. In recent crises throughout the world, social media has been utilized as an intervening variable in public mobilization, and one instance that cannot be overlooked is the usage of social media during the 2012 US presidential election. Southern Cameroonian were fortunate that they had a diasporas group who used social mediate to spread the news of what is going on in their homeland widely ,and faster in a very short space of time this action alert and attracted
The democratic deficit of diaspora politics
One of the claims made by recent studies of transnational migration and refugee politics is that it is no longer the privilege of elite organizations, but that the grassroot element is more important. However, it is unclear to what extent distinct diaspora political groups take their cues from the greater diaspora or the people in the homeland when determining their aims in respect to the conflict in their homeland. (Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003)
Indeed, one tough issue is the extent to which diaspora and exile political organizations that advocate for democracy in their home countries have succeeded in constructing democratic and popular institutions abroad. How representative of the greater population of migrants and refugees do transnational diaspora networks claim to be?
This issue is relevant in light of how western governments interact with diaspora political actors, as demonstrated lately in Iraq’s post-conflict reconstruction effort. It is also a problem that politicians who are contacted by diaspora political lobbying may be concerned about. How to tell if an organization actually represents a diaspora (Østergaard-Nielsen, 2003)
The very nature of diaspora politics, its isolation from traditional democratic procedures, renders any normative assessment of diaspora political leaders’ democratic representatively difficult, if not impossible. As a result, many Kurdish networks’ claims to be the legitimate representatives of the Kurdish people are difficult to verify.
Given the nature of diaspora politics and its exclusion from conventional Østergaard-Nielsen, (2003) democratic procedures, any normative analysis of democratic representatively of diaspora political leaders is likely to be difficult, if not impossible. As a result, it’s hard to verify claims made by a number of Kurdish networks claiming to represent the Kurdish people legitimately so like the case of Cameroon it is difficult to know if the diaspora have the best interest of of the people in the homeland as they should be consider a key actor in the ongoing situation in the Northwest and southwest region
In the United States, political polarization is sometimes seen as a separate national sickness. However, as this book demonstrates, it is a widespread phenomenon with similar negative consequences for democracy in a range of countries. It regularly undermines democratic norms, corrodes basic legislative procedures, jeopardizes the judiciary’s neutrality, and fuels public discontent with political parties. It exacerbates intolerance and prejudice, erodes societal trust, and encourages violence. Furthermore, it sustains and entrenches itself, trapping countries in a downward spiral of hate and division with no easy remedies (Lupu, 2013).
Political polarization appears to be a simple notion at first glance: a country’s political life is polarized to the point that opposing political groups’ beliefs and actions diverge and there is no major common ground. On closer inspection, however, it reveals substantial analytic complications. The boundary between positive and negative levels of polarization is a significant puzzle. Given that parties battle vigorously for votes, strive to build their own loyal supporters, and often distinguish themselves by having unique thematic goals, some polarization is to be expected in a democratic system. In young and fledgling democracies seeking to develop stable party systems, some division may be useful. According to (Lupu, 2013).
Severe polarization, which is rooted in opposing social identities, has a tendency to last for a long time, lasting beyond a single polarizing event and, in most cases, beyond the tenure of a single polarizing leader.
Plurality and dialogue
There is a lot to be said about dealing with Diasporas in terms of conflict resolution. “Working with Diasporas provides a tremendously rich range of alternatives,” Lyons explains. Not because they are the primary source of the problem, but because they are, above all, reachable. You are not required to venture into the woods. Diasporas can often be located in your own backyard” (Lyons 2003). However, because there are sometimes several sets of spokesmen, determining who speaks for the diasporas may be challenging. Finally, I’d like to say that the fact that a diaspora may not speak with a single voice may be a beneficial trait.
Political pluralism is frequently seen as a barrier to diaspora political influence. At the same time, having multiple political networks with different ideas about how to handle the disagreement in their own country may be a strength. According to (Lyons, 2003), in order to reach a reasonable settlement, these diverse political groups may need to convene at the same negotiating table. It is thus potentially critical to foster dialogue not only with but also within diasporas.
Furthermore, debate is, in my opinion, a crucial first step toward Diaspora approach and goal compromise and moderation. Radicalism is a result of marginalization in some situations. If an actvists are unable to communicate with authorities in the host nation, it will be less motivated to adjust its aims and objectives. Domestic political forces seldom evaporate just because they are prohibited. They change their name or their headquarters to a different nation.
As previously said, Diasporas have been seen as hardliners unwilling to accept compromises since the struggle is low-cost to them and may have become an integral component of exile identity.
By calling for more inclusive relationships with diasporas, I am not seeking terrorist groups’ approval. Rather than simply giving an ear or playing a political role to the more resourceful organizations, I’m highlighting the need of casting a wide net. This might be a critical step in recasting Diasporas as a solution to dispute resolution rather than a problem (Lyons, 2003).
(Shain & Barth, 2003) In their work Diasporas and International Relations Theory, they link the study of diasporas with international relations (IR) theory by focusing on diasporas as independent actors that actively shape the foreign policy of their homeland (kin-state). They argue that the easiest approach to comprehend diasporic effects is to situate them in the ‘theoretical space’ shared by constructivism and liberalism, two systems that acknowledge the importance of identity and home politics in international behavior. They also contend that researching diasporic activities may assist both constructivism and liberalism. First, diasporas’ identity-based motivations should be included into the constructivist effort to explain the creation of national identities. Second, diasporic activities and impacts in their home nations expand the meaning of “domestic politics” to include not just politics inside the state but also politics within the people. For the liberal perspective, this is a “new fact” in the Lakatosian sense. They contend that the extent of diasporic influence on homeland foreign policy is determined by three criteria that comprise the “balance of power” between homelands and diasporas. They next put this notion to the test by investigating the interactions between Armenia’s newly formed state and its powerful diaspora, and compared this example to precedents from Israel’s relationships with diaspora Jews.