Citizens, Constitutions, Institutions and Systems Part 2*

Louis Egbe Mbua

When the situation in a society has reached a state whereby a respected man of God begins to question his own conscience, then what use are institutions or laws to help a long suffering people. Citizens are the law because citizens create and run institutions and the system. So, when Christian Cardinal Tumi once wrote in the early 2000s that: "Les problemes economiques du pays sont "aggraves par la malhonnetete de certains governants corropus qui, de conveneance avec des interets prives locaux ou etrangers, detournent les resources nationales a leur profit, transferant des deniers publics dans des comptes prives, dans des banques etrangeres,"" [ The economic problems of the country are aggravated by certain dishonest and corrupt leaders who, to satisfy their local or foreign self- interests loot the national resources for their own profit, transferring public funds to their private bank accounts and then into foreign bank accounts], are we to say that there were no laws against blatant theft of the Cameroon's resources by selfish people? Else, why was this not prevalent in the UN Trusteeship era; and the era of the Federation when the constitution was reasonably respected; especially in the Federated State of West Cameroon?

The conclusion of this particular saga is that once morality breaks down in a country, especially if instigated from the top, nobody bothers to follow the laws of the land – constitutions are violated and laws are ignored by the same people who are supposed to be custodians of that same law – and so the vicious cycle continues. Since no country is capable of establishing perfect laws, the social and political order that are prevalent at the time takes over. That was why Cardinal Tumi mused, "Et l'argent du petrole? Un Secret d'Etat! Et L'Etat c'est qui?" [And the oil money? A State Secret! And who is the State?].

Citizens make up the state and the system. Since the system is corrupt, the institutions would not function irrespective of how good they are. If not rectified, the decline will continue unabated in other spheres and the eventual corrosion of all good institutions. Cameroon’s moral fabric is worn out, in which case the country is actually heading for a decline into obscurity and possible disintegration: and not glory. The dismal showing of the Cameroon National Team in this year’s recent Cup of Nations is one pointer. The dangerous Southern Cameroons question is another one. Thus far, we can argue that the presence of an all-encompassing and elegant constitution that normally precedes the creation of institutions and the subsequent development of a system is not necessarily a guarantor of prosperous nation states. To uphold a well-endowed system requires that those who are vested with power, as overseers of that created system, must not only have impeccable moral track records but that they must be subjected to rigorous checks and balances by the people who are stake holders of that nation state. There are several reasons that guide this principle:

1. Since no human is perfect; and that human nature has this inherent urge to abuse power, the possibilities of a decline is always present if not checked

2. Systems involve an input of effort by humans; this effort then is processed by humans to warrant the eventual outcome. Thus, the outcome of the system is vastly dependent on the quality of effort by all involved. If the quality of effort is degenerate, the logical conclusion is that the outcome would deliver a thoroughly corrupt and inefficient system

3. Moral compass alone is not enough to produce a workable and efficient system; but that a meritocratic culture – whereby only those who are supremely capable in their particular field and talent would be apportioned what they so do deserve within the system. Therefore, both a moral yardstick and a supremely appropriate talent may determine if a system may succeed or fail. Both characteristics are interdependent. One cannot work independent of the other.

If we agree on the above points, then we may now see that a system that is monolithic in nature always results in a totalitarian state. Although certain totalitarian states have shown a semblance of success in economic benefits, it cannot be adduced that the same totalitarian system would produce an enviably prosperous nation in terms of social and political advancement. A state, as we may infer, is not constituted of economic or financial development alone.

Again, development is a combined notion of the three cardinal points: social, economic and political paradigms. So, while a totalitarian state may have a successful outcome, the entire mass of the people, who make up the system, are deprived of social and political development because they have been excluded from participatory power and sharing in the process of governance of their own state. Consequently, the system evolves into a government of the people by the few. In this case, therefore, only the few who monopolise power are educated politically as to exercise these powers; and to socialise amongst themselves while the vast mass of the population are left “happy” with economic prosperity.

As one cannot guarantee the ability and moral imperatives of the few, there is almost certainly the risk of installing a tyrant who is educated in the realms of exercising power; and having the right social connection to perpetuate power together with his few friends. Since the entire population of this kind of system are left out, they become ignorant over time. The consequences are that, they may forget about their human rights, the natural law of self-preservation and self-defence; and their right to know what exactly the tyranny does with their invested human and material capital. With the passage of time, the system becomes irrevocably corrupt because their financial investment which they have been brought to believe in will evaporate: squandered by the dictatorship in their lavish social life styles. Since economic resources are limited, it is only a matter of time before the entire system collapses because the society was already socially and politically bankrupt. When this happens, we enter into the territory of a time-warped vicious cycle. As the masses are politically and socially deprived, it would require a time span almost equivalent to the reign of totalitarianism to recover from the psychological traumas. Worse is that, the next leader may also be politically ungrounded or might have been groomed by the previous system. In this case, he may continue from where the last tyrant ended his reign; and then perpetuate another years of terror. That has been the state with post-independence African governments.

The way forward for such a dire politico-economic quagmire may be attained if we draw examples from the ancients who appear to have been wiser, in some respects, than the present generation of Africans. It appears the most successful systems work in a golden triangle of constitution working in singularity. If we recall that ancient Egypt had three arms of power sharing, then we may begin to see why several successful systems have adopted the separation or diversification of power. The diversification of power, even in modern times, does not mean that there would be no head of government or system.

The ancient Egyptians had three powers viz: The Monarch, the Priesthood and the Vizier. The Monarch was responsible for the executing projects and ensuring the well being and defence of the state; and to create institutions to realise these objectives. The Priesthood was responsible for the spiritual and moral uprightness of both the society and the Monarch. The Vizier was the legal arm of the state: ensuring that all laws of the land were perfectly maintained. While the executive monarch had ultimate powers and was treated as a divine, this “divinity” was derived from the powerful priests who could destabilise the monarchy if the monarch acted contrary to the moral and spiritual standards of the day. Meanwhile the Vizier was overseen by the Monarch but had little alternative but to take advice as regards to the law from the Vizier as such.

The three institutions acted so as to create a balance of power and therefore obviated abuse of power and truning the King into an absolute Monarch. It has be recalled that when the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten made a radical turn and contradicted the Priests to transfer his capital from Waset [Greek: Thebes (Present day Arab: Luxor) ] to Amarna and attempted to defy the priests, his downfall and that of his dynasty was assured – his name was erased from Egyptian history until it was only rediscovered in modern times. Whether the Priests or the Monarch were right in their polytheist religious dogma is not the question. The point here is that the Monarch acted unilaterally and in a totalitarian manner in contravention to the accepted law and traditions of Egypt; and that he defied one of the powers, the Priesthood. What would have happened if he took counsel from the Priests before beginning a new religion is an academic and moving the capital away from them is another matter altogether; and a question that can only fit into the diktat of wild speculation. The point is that he never did what was right; and as a result, he broke the law. In so doing, he disturbed the stability of the state and the system with unprecedented consequences for Egypt.

* Part of this work first appeared in the Cameroon discussion group: camnetwork.