Community dialogue & the Anglophone crisis: Respectful response to Prof Willibroad Dze-Ngwa.

I agree with much of his analysis, particularly his argument that Community Dialogue alone cannot resolve the historical, constitutional and political dimensions of the crisis. However, I believe his article offers an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the peace process that may not be sufficiently understood.

Community Dialogue was never intended to resolve the Anglophone crisis in its entirety. Its immediate objective is to restore peace, rebuild trust, promote reconciliation and strengthen social cohesion within communities devastated by nearly ten years of conflict. It is also intended to create a more conducive environment for broader political discussions. The distinction is fundamental.

The national approach did not begin with community dialogue

One point I would respectfully emphasise is that Cameroon did not suddenly discover the need for national political dialogue with the recent launches in Buea and Bamenda. A national approach was formally established through the Major National Dialogue convened in 2019. That dialogue examined the grievances underlying the crisis and produced recommendations concerning Special Status, decentralisation, bilingualism, education, the judiciary, reconstruction and reintegration.

More importantly, a Follow-up Committee was subsequently established to examine the implementation of the recommendations and sustain engagement. Several follow-up meetings have been held in Yaoundé, Buea and Bamenda. These meetings were not intended merely as ceremonial gatherings. They formed part of an institutional process through which outstanding issues could be examined and progress assessed.

Were all the recommendations implemented satisfactorily? Certainly not. There have been shortcomings, delays and legitimate frustrations. These must be acknowledged rather than dismissed. But it would be inaccurate to suggest that the national approach ended with the Major National Dialogue or that Community Dialogue has now replaced it. Community Dialogue should be understood as an additional dimension of an existing peace process, not as a substitute for national political engagement.

Contacts with the diaspora and armed groups

There is another dimension that deserves attention. Alongside the formal meetings of the Follow-up Committee, more discreet efforts have been undertaken to establish contact with representatives of the Anglophone diaspora and individuals associated with the armed conflict. I recall that during one of the Follow-up Committee meetings in Buea, religious leaders were encouraged to reach out to diaspora representatives and explore opportunities for engagement.

Subsequent contacts and meetings generated expressions of interest from some diaspora representatives and individuals associated with armed groups on the ground. These developments demonstrated that opportunities for dialogue existed, even among people holding fundamentally different political positions.

However, progress was slower than expected. I believe we must acknowledge that delays also occurred on the government’s side. There are political, institutional, security and procedural considerations that can complicate sensitive negotiations. Recognising these difficulties does not mean excusing unnecessary delays or avoiding responsibility.

The government must demonstrate the political will required to sustain credible engagement, while other stakeholders must also show a willingness to explore peaceful alternatives. My point is that the absence of a comprehensive peace agreement does not necessarily mean that contacts, consultations and efforts to negotiate have ceased.

Not every peace initiative takes place before television cameras, and not every meeting produces an immediate breakthrough. Nevertheless, discreet engagement must eventually lead to meaningful progress if public confidence is to be restored.

From Bamenda to Buea: Building peace step by step

Community Dialogue did not begin with the Prime Minister’s recent visits. On the 17th and 18th July 2026, religious leaders met at the Archbishop’s House in Big Mankon, Bamenda, under the leadership of His Grace Archbishop Andrew Nkea. I had the opportunity to present reflections on peacebuilding, conflict resolution and lessons learnt from nearly ten years of crisis.

Drawing on my experience as a journalist and peacebuilding practitioner, including engagements alongside the late Cardinal Christian Tumi, Archbishop Andrew Nkea and other religious leaders, I emphasised that sustainable peace requires more than security measures. It requires justice, trust, dialogue, development, reconciliation and the participation of affected communities.

Our discussions were also inspired by Pope Leo XIV’s message of peace, reconciliation and hope. The central lesson was that people must come before politics. On the 2nd and 3rd September 2026, religious and traditional leaders from the North West and South West Regions met at the Bishop Pius Awa Memorial Pastoral Centre in Buea.

This meeting represented a continuation of the Bamenda consultations. I presented two papers addressing the role of traditional institutions in peacebuilding, social cohesion and community reconciliation, and the development of a Joint Peace Action Framework. We examined how traditional rulers and religious leaders could work together to rebuild confidence, prevent violence, facilitate dialogue and restore relationships.

The consultations identified Ngoketunjia Division in the North West Region and Fako Division in the South West Region as pilot areas for community-level engagement. These were not discussions about replacing political negotiations. They were about preparing communities to contribute meaningfully to peace.

From declarations to measurable action

One criticism frequently directed at peace initiatives is that they produce declarations without implementation. That concern is legitimate. It was precisely why, during my presentation in Buea on 3rd September, I insisted that our consultations should produce practical commitments rather than another collection of general resolutions.

The Joint Peace Action Framework identified five priorities: Prevention of violence through early warning and trusted communication; Inclusive dialogue and mediation; Social cohesion, including minority protection and the rebuilding of relationships; Reconciliation, healing and safe return. Community recovery through education, livelihoods and visible improvements in daily life.

We proposed that each priority action should have an identified lead, supporting partners, a geographical focus, a timetable and measurable indicators. The framework envisaged initial actions within 30, 60 and 90 days. I emphasised a simple principle during those discussions:-

If an action has no responsible person, no date and no indicator of progress, it remains an aspiration rather than an operational plan. This is important because Community Dialogue must ultimately be judged by what changes in people’s lives. Can children return safely to school? Can farmers cultivate their land? Can traders reach markets? Can displaced families return voluntarily and safely? Can communities resolve disagreements without violence? These are practical questions that deserve attention alongside the broader political issues.

Social cohesion and the restoration of traditional institutions

During the Community Dialogue launches in Buea and Bamenda, H.E. Paul Tasong Njukang, Minister Delegate and President of the Steering Committee of the Presidential Plan for the Reconstruction and Development of the North West and South West Regions (PPRD), placed particular emphasis on social cohesion and the rehabilitation of traditional institutions, including chiefs’ and fons’ palaces. This is significant. A traditional palace is not merely a building. It is often an institution of cultural identity, collective memory, community leadership and mediation.

The conflict has weakened many of these institutions. Some traditional rulers have been displaced, threatened or attacked, while others have faced declining public confidence. Rebuilding these institutions must therefore involve more than reconstructing physical structures. It requires restoring legitimacy, impartiality and trust.

Traditional rulers must remain close to their communities and provide leadership that respects political differences, protects minorities and promotes peaceful coexistence.

Religious leaders can complement this role through their moral authority and their capacity to facilitate reconciliation. Neither institution can independently resolve the constitutional dimensions of the crisis. But both can contribute to restoring the social relationships upon which lasting peace depends.

Peace cannot wait for every political question to be resolved

Professor Dze-Ngwa correctly argues that constitutional problems require political solutions. I agree. But must our children continue to miss school while we await a comprehensive constitutional settlement? Must displaced families remain away from their homes until every political disagreement is resolved? Must farmers abandon their farms and traders lose their livelihoods while negotiations continue? Surely, communities should not be expected to endure indefinite suffering while waiting for a final political agreement.

We can work to reduce violence, rebuild trust and restore normal life while pursuing the broader political settlement.

Indeed, a safer and more trusting environment may make political negotiations more credible and sustainable. Community peacebuilding and national political dialogue are not competing approaches. They can reinforce one another.

The lesson of Northern Ireland: Patience without complacency

Professor Dze-Ngwa refers to the Good Friday Agreement as an example of a national political settlement. It is a relevant example, but it also illustrates the difficulties and patience often involved in peace processes. The agreement was signed on 10th April 1998 following approximately three decades of conflict known as the Troubles, although the historical disagreements surrounding Ireland’s constitutional future extended much further back.

The agreement did not emerge overnight. It followed years of political initiatives, contacts, negotiations, setbacks, compromises and efforts to build confidence. Its achievement required political courage and a willingness to recognise that people with fundamentally different constitutional aspirations would continue living alongside one another.

I am certainly not suggesting that Cameroon should wait another twenty or thirty years to achieve peace. Far from it. My hope is that we can learn from other experiences and avoid prolonging the suffering of our people. But we must recognise that peace processes are rarely linear. They require patience, tolerance, persistence and political will. Patience must never become an excuse for government inaction, just as frustration must never become a justification for violence.

Independence aspirations may survive a peace agreement

There is another reality we must be mature enough to acknowledge. Even if Cameroon eventually reaches a comprehensive peace agreement, some people may continue to believe that the North West and South West Regions should become an independent state. Others will continue to advocate federalism, stronger regional autonomy or the preservation of the existing constitutional order with reforms.

A peace agreement does not necessarily eliminate these competing political aspirations. The desire for freedom, dignity and self-determination is deeply rooted in human experience. What matters is how such aspirations are expressed and pursued. Consider Scotland, which has been part of the political union forming Great Britain since 1707. More than three centuries later, the Scottish National Party continues to advocate independence through political and constitutional means.

In Canada, the Bloc Québécois continues to represent a sovereigntist political tradition within federal parliamentary politics. Quebec has held referendums on sovereignty, while debates concerning greater autonomy and independence have also emerged in Alberta.

These situations are historically and constitutionally different from Cameroon’s Anglophone crisis, and none should be treated as an exact model. Nevertheless, they illustrate an important principle: competing views about national identity, autonomy and independence can persist within political systems and be pursued through peaceful democratic activity.

Even Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement did not require nationalists and unionists to abandon their different constitutional aspirations. Instead, it established a framework for political coexistence and the peaceful management of disagreement. That is an important lesson.

Lasting peace does not necessarily require everyone to share the same political vision. It requires people to accept that their differences must be pursued peacefully, through dialogue, lawful political engagement and respect for human dignity. We must learn to disagree without treating one another as enemies.

Inclusiveness, detainees and political responsibility

I have followed the public reactions to the Community Dialogue launches in Buea and Bamenda. Many people have raised legitimate concerns about representation, the participation of armed actors and the continued detention of individuals associated with the crisis. These questions cannot simply be dismissed.

A credible peace process must provide meaningful opportunities for participation by those directly affected, including victims, displaced persons, women, young people, traditional and religious leaders, civil society and individuals holding different political views. Appropriate channels for engaging armed actors are also essential to efforts aimed at ending violence.

The question of detainees deserves serious consideration as part of broader discussions about justice, reconciliation and confidence-building measures. Equally, we must acknowledge that mistakes were made in the handling of the initial crisis and that government authorities have a responsibility to address legitimate grievances and implement agreed measures. But responsibility is not confined to one side.

All actors who exercise influence over the conflict must recognise their obligations towards civilian populations and the need to pursue peaceful alternatives. The purpose of dialogue should not be to humiliate one party or demand unconditional surrender from another. It should be to create conditions in which difficult questions can be discussed without violence.

Where Prof Dze-Ngwa and I agree

Professor Dze-Ngwa proposes a two-track approach combining Community Dialogue with national political negotiations. On this fundamental point, we have considerable common ground. Community Dialogue can contribute to restoring trust, social cohesion and reconciliation.

National political engagement must address the constitutional, historical, institutional and governance questions that remain unresolved. My principal clarification is that a national process was already initiated through the Major National Dialogue and its follow-up mechanisms. The task is to examine its shortcomings, strengthen its credibility, sustain engagement with relevant stakeholders and ensure that political commitments are translated into meaningful results. Community Dialogue should complement that work.

It should neither be exaggerated into a comprehensive political solution nor dismissed because it cannot independently resolve every aspect of the crisis. The true test is whether it improves people’s lives and contributes to conditions in which broader political negotiations can advance.

Conclusion: Peace is a process, not an event

After nearly ten years of suffering in the North West and South West Regions, I believe we must approach the search for peace with greater patience, tolerance, humility and determination. We must acknowledge past mistakes, including those committed by government authorities.

We must recognise the legitimate grievances that contributed to the crisis. We must accept that people hold different political aspirations and that these differences may persist even after a peace agreement. Above all, we must reject the idea that violence is the only means through which political objectives can be pursued.

The Major National Dialogue, the Follow-up Committee, contacts with diaspora representatives, the consultations involving religious and traditional leaders, and the Community Dialogue initiative should be examined as interconnected efforts, while recognising their different mandates and limitations. I welcome Professor Willibroad Dze-Ngwa’s contribution because serious intellectual engagement is indispensable to the search for peace.

However, I respectfully maintain that the immediate purpose of Community Dialogue is not to settle every constitutional disagreement. It is to restore peace in our communities, rebuild confidence, promote social cohesion and help create conditions for broader political engagement. And this is why I continue to insist that we must proceed step by step.

We cannot resolve every political disagreement before beginning to rebuild peace, just as we cannot expect community reconciliation alone to resolve every political disagreement. The two responsibilities must advance together. Our people have suffered enough.

Let us continue the difficult work of dialogue, acknowledge our failures, respect our differences and pursue peace with sincerity. Peace does not mean the end of political disagreement. It means creating conditions in which disagreement no longer leads to violence. That, in my view, is one of the most important lessons Cameroon can draw from its own experience and from peace processes elsewhere.

By Elie Smith

This article was first published in The Guardian Post Edition No:3947 of Thursday October 22, 2026