Citizens, Constitutions, Institutions and Systems Part 3

Louis Egbe Mbua

The idea that Europeans created the present African chieftaincy to propagate or advance their interests is totally without foundation. While, they may have manipulated African chiefs to suit their interests or agenda on slavery and colonialism, it is clear from reliable accounts that African Kingdoms were always there before the arrival of Europeans. So, if we turn our attention to the African method of traditional governance we may be able to understand how such societies were able to be kept politically stable for thousands of years before the arrival of European culture. While it is true that there were inter-tribal wars – there were also inter-nation wars in Europe -- it seems the present historical accounts of early Europeans are skewed – giving the impression that no system of government was present in Africa. This is evidenced in this statement by Lord Lugard, the British Colonial Commander in East and West Africa in the colonial era. In The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, Lawrence James wrote:

He [Lugard] wanted government along the lines that had evolved in India in which the administration would be impartial, firm and respect local institutions and conventions. He had in mind the Indian practice of indirect rule by which British had adopted and sometimes adjusted existing political structures and co-operated with established rulers. It was an attractive alternative to the infinitely expensive and wearisome process of creating and entirely new system of government, which was bound to provoke upheavals and resentment.

Thus, there always had been established institutions, laws and systems in Africa. If we take a closer look at the present African Kingdoms, it bears a striking semblance to those of both Egyptian and ancient African Kingdoms like those of the Songhai and the Sudan: there is the Monarchy, a Council of Elders and the Chief adviser ruling in tandem; all mutually interdependent; exhibiting the separation of powers. So, what went wrong with the present African political system?

As mentioned earlier, a society can only advance if they maintain their systems, constitutions, and institutions in line with their cultural roots. They may then have the opportunity to adjust them to suit the times and circumstances. It is a matter of irrelevance how long this process towards the match to advancement takes. The ancient Egyptians, following a similar method of governance, took at least 1000 years from an unknown system to the Old Kingdom; 1000 years to the Middle Kingdom; another millennium from the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom; and then another 1000 years for the Egyptian civilisation to reach her heights and then fall. The interesting part here is that ancient Egyptians, at first united their land; and then defended their land from invaders. This could only be done because they followed their laws and system as closely as they could. Once they could not maintain or lost focus of their cultural system and laws, they were conquered and as a result their destiny was altered. Since the new system was in complete contrast to their conservative system that served them so well for millennia, they had to capitulate as they had to completely learn a foreign system.

To master this foreign system will no doubt last a millennium, at least. Similarly, the arrival of the Europeans with their own system destabilised Africa since their system and their laws were thrown out for them to relearn an alien system. The point here is not whether the new system was good or bad for humanity; but that their path to development as suits their political, economic and social alignment had been disturbed. How Africans would have developed without western interference is open to question. The simple fact is that human beings in a particular environment do not remain stagnant in developmental terms forever. A typical example is China. They have resisted all outside interference to alter their method of governance for millennia – from Japan to the West.

For millennia, the Chinese stayed true to their cultural system. Although it is secretive in its outlook, it would seem that they continue to apply the rules of separation of powers. As long as they maintain the system which they follow, it is clear that they will come to master their own system, harness it to attain a critical mass to move forward. Once this system has been mastered, development can come at an astronomical speed as we see today in China. Had China succumbed to Western methods of governance, it is unlikely that they would today be a superpower. Similarly, had Africans been left to their own devices, complete with their own system and institutions and laws, they would have come to master this system and once mastered, development would have been rapid as applied to all peoples.

Thus, interference of foreign powers; and imposition of alien systems for their own interest seems the main problem that stifle social, economic and political development in a conservative or liberal society. In so doing, they may have to search for the gullible and unwise to execute their agenda of mass exploitation and devastation. The problem is dire because it becomes a system of recycled beggary. As the foreign powers exploit the people, they become poorer and weaker while the interfering power becomes stronger and richer. The resources they loot are used to further develop their own system, economically, politically, and socially. Additionally, they use the excess resources to develop their education, arts, technology and weapons to intimidate the exploited nation. This has been the case for millennia: it was applied by the ancient Egyptians, the Romans and now the Western nations and China continue this grand larceny of reducing the African and other unfortunate people of the world to nations of beggars.

It has to be understood that all humans are similar in their greed and quest for power. This power is that power to dominate other peoples as to prove or demonstrate a kind of delusional superiority that does not exist in human beings. On top of this food chain are not only the foreign powers; but includes collaborators with the same stagnated and illusory mindset that may be likened to a man who is drunk; and is misled to believe that the power of the foreign is automatically transferred to them from Washington, Paris, Beijing or London. In the ensuing confusion of mind, he transforms himself – in another spectacularly grand delusion- into a French or Chinese person; in which case, he believes he is superior to his own countrymen. In this pathetic case of affairs, he throws reason to the wind, abandons his cultural system and enters into a state of trans-in-tyranny: imposing his debauched will on his own people; destroying their institutions, constitution and the system his forefathers left behind. This, reader, is the cause of backwardness in most societies.

With the breakdown of a system, the interferring foreign powers become alarmed because this would mean their interests are threatened since there is every risk of a revolution to sweep away the corrupted tyranny that they created. In this dangerous situation, they attempt a futile balancing act: attempting to pretend to sympathise with the people while at the same time maintaining a cunning plan to maintain the same tyrannical system that has served them so well and which is still serving them. When the centre no longer holds, they concoct another “change of system” by bringing in another gullible and unwise ruler whose name is cowardice to repeat the same process by deceiving the hapless citizens that a revolution has occurred to save them; when there has been actually a non-event but the status quo remains to serve the foreign powers rather than the citizens.

What the citizens may not discern is that it is the same corrupt system designed to enrich the new masters and their foreign sponsors that is in place. What these rulers, on the other hand, fail to grasp is that those who bestow power on another are the powers behind the throne. The following is that all important decisions conceived, and to be executed by the imposed ruler must be cleared with the powers abroad so that their geo-political and economic interests are protected and maintained at the tremendous cost to citizens of that nation state. Most of such rulers have a firm belief that they may be able to balance the interest of their nation state against those of their masters abroad. However, this is a mistaken view because running a nation state itself is a noble task. To add on the awareness that one is also answerable to interests of an outside party with a totally different agenda; and which the ruler may not be fully aware or have full knowledge, is a much more difficult job.

A foreign power may have a long term plan to colonise the country but will disguise these objectives in sugar-coating economic concessions and “bilateral corporation” without revealing their true aims. Consequently, citizens of the now unwittingly subjugated state would now have two jobs to do so as to meet both their fundamental subsistence needs as well as maintain the luxury life style and objectives of the foreign power. Since there is limited capacity which humans can perform work, it is clear that they won’t be able to increase their hours of work past a maximum effort.

Even if we assume that citizens of that nation state have enough working energy to attain these double tasks, this will prove unsustainable in the long term. The results are that they will return to their normal human state of work with the consequences that the quality of their output may either fall or attain stagnation. In this scenario, therefore, the nation would settle for the basic in human wants; and if the trend continues, then stagnation will follow. With time, social, economic and political stagnation will ensue. Quality and quantity of output will fall giving rise to instability. The power-hungry rulers would be left with no alternative then but to go cap in hand to their foreign masters to come to their “rescue”. The foreign power will be only too glad to return and “help” the citizens out of their misery.

In comes the World Bank, The Paris club, The International Monetary Fund and the G. 8 or “G20” and other “Developed” nations who would then provide funds on strict conditions: to “privatise” the entire doomed nation state on the pretext of capitalism. The problem here is that such privatisations are normally done corruptly because those who would buy up the country are the richest men and institutions. And where are these organisations based; and where do they pay their corporate taxes? Well, in the land of the same foreign powerful masters. So, while citizens of the doomed nation state may be deceived into believing that they are being rescued, they are actually being duped into selling up their patrimony. Once these foreign institutions are well entrenched in the country, they again begin dictating the social, political and economic trend – the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. And the cycle continues.

How and when should this cycle be broken so that the citizens would realise the full benefits of their hard-earned human and capital investment? That is the question? And what happens if the new ruler decides to defy the foreign powers who installed them? Another question altogether. Worse still, what are the consequences to the nation state if citizens decide to challenge both installed rulers and their foreign masters? A much more tricky and difficult question because:

1. They would be fighting a battle on two fronts
2. Their energy is now marginal after decades or centuries of dissipation and exploitation
3. Their resources have been depleted
4. These foreign powers will arm their puppets
5. These foreign powers will support the junta in words and resources.
6. These foreign powers control international organisations to suit their interests
7. The valliant efforts by citizens to throw out these corrupt rulers will be blocked at the UN.

So, what exactly is the way forward in this sombre scenario? A new kind of international-cum-national democratic ideal to be invented? Revolution? Resigning to fate in the status quo?

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.

CITIZENS, CONSTITUTIONS, INSTITUTIONS AND SYSTEMS -- PART 1

Mentuhotep II: First King of Middle Kingdom ancient Egypt; The Egyptians created the first institution of government; the idea of citizens, laws and systems which lasted at least 3000 years. Winkipedia

Louis Egbe Mbua

When the moral fabric of a society cracks up; and the crack spreads rapidly from the top of the establishment to ordinary citizens in an uncontrollable manner, then the system has failed perpetually; and must be changed so that it could be replaced by the most benevolent system. Historical facts point to the ruins of ancient civilisation which had reached their zenith but ultimately failed. It can be safely said that failure starts with the people who control the levers of power --the establishment -- who run the variously created institutions; write up the constitutions and make the system work in a civilised environment.

The main cause of such a decline is normally linked to a decline in moral standards in every sense of the word by a majority of its citizens. During the Bill Clinton Presidency, in the entire 1990s, it can be inferred that the former America President presided over one of the longest, most enduring, robust and “feel good” economic boom America saw last century. It has now been shown to be a temporal hitch as the credit crunch and economic collapse returned with a vengeance almost 20 years later, in 2007/2008.


What Bill Clinton showed was that it is possible to engage in some kind of immorality with a 25 year old Monica Lewinsky (That Woman), albeit in a small way, and at the same time stay as president with good economic and political credentials. Good and fine. But the consequences are that the next president may find nothing wrong with engaging in a small or big malfeasance as we are witnessing in this US election drama where George Bush won in 2000. In 2003, he went on to fulfil this prophesy – executing futile and senseless war in Iraq on the foundation of a very big lie about Iraq possessing chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The consequences have been disastrous economically, morally and politically with catastrophic human and material costs. Is this, therefore, beginning of the decline and fall of the USA? That is an academic question.

This, one dares to believe, is how nations start to decline and with it the institutions, law and order and the overthrow of its constitutions; and the eventual collapse of the system with the subsequent suffering of its citizens. The Roman Empire was one of the greatest and long-lasting empires that the world has ever known. Edward Gibbons in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" wrote, "The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury." It lasted almost 2000 years. At its peak, it controlled almost the entire known world from Great Britain to Egypt in Africa to Persia in Asia. With good and upright leaders albeit dictators-for-life such as Julius Caesar, they practised a form of constitutional democracy in their Senate. They built institutions and almost perfected the system with its citizens living in enormous luxury.

Then came final the blow. Its leaders became corrupt, engaging in all kinds of violence, debauchery, tyrannical acts, incest and pornography, paganism, theft and laziness and ridiculous pleasure and orgy.In one narrative, the Historian William Kinglaman wrote that: "On the banks of the Tiber, the older members of the Roman Aristocracy vied, not entirely willingly, to see who could spend the most money on the luxury goods that were offered for sale in booths, while their sons and daughters competed in obscene dramatic productions and athletics contests." These were games designed by Emperor Nero in conjunction with the establishment that eventually led to breakdown of the system; and the consequent down fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, Caligula, the Roman emperor, blew the entire Roman treasury within a year after Tiberius. So, who is to blame here? Corrupt leadership or bad institutions? Is there any pointer as to what good institutions are? Which comes first in priority? Human leadership or institutions?

In the Cameroonian and African context, what we saw in the last three decades was the decline and fall of middle-income countries from glory to ignominy where the entire Africa, Cameroon in particular, became poor indebted countries overnight.. Are we to say that Cameroon did not have institutions and many good laws before the present regime came to power? Did the Cameroon citizens not create state- run institutions such as the PMO, POWECAM, functioning airports and seaports, a state Airline? Or are we to say that these were not institutions built by citizens? While one has to credit the Ahidjo regime with reasonable economic achievements, I believe the present government must be held fully responsible for the moral decadence that is today in the Cameroonian social, political and economic life.

Once corruption has set in, most of the time introduced by morally bankrupt leaders, it permeates the society and affects all citizens whether there are good laws and a constitution or not. If the judiciary, some high-ranking government officials; the legislative arm and the police are corrupt institutions -- who citizens emulate -- then what use is the law, institutions and constitution? What becomes of the citizens in such a system?