A lack of inclusion and adequate trust building measures is limiting the potential of Cameroon’s national dialogue for peace. It is a pattern that has been repeated time and again across Africa, writes Nchongayi Christantus Begealawuh.

The persistence of conflict across Africa has fuelled the search for effective conflict resolution mechanisms. Recently, national dialogues have gained traction as a potential solution for the peaceful transformation of the continent. A national dialogue is a type of citizens assembly. It required the assembly of a diverse range of stakeholders from different sectors of society who meet with clear procedures for open and inclusive discussion on specific issues. In an ideal world, a well-organised national dialogue can result in increased trust among the participants and a shared vision for the country’s future.

In 2013, Tunisia suffered a political crisis sparked by a political assassination of a major politician. It resulted in the resignation of the prime minister and the adoption of a new constitution. The national dialogue that followed led to a consensus-based solution and provided a roadmap for a democratic transition that effectively addressed the violence and fostered national unity.

Tunisia serves as a example of how this process can work effectively. Unfortunately, in Cameroon its national dialogue has been criticised for a lack of diversity and clear goals and has subsequently failed to deliver its promises.

A snapshot of Cameroon’s dialogue

Three years ago, Cameroon began to organise a ‘major National dialogue’ to address its Anglophone Crisis, an ongoing conflict in the English-speaking Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon. The crisis began in 2016 following peaceful protests by lawyers and teachers, which escalated when the government responded with a violent crackdown on protesters. Since then, the conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths, widespread displacement, and human rights abuses by both government forces and separatist fighters. Efforts to resolve the crisis through the 2019 major national dialogue process have been largely unsuccessful.

In 2019, the government announced a major national dialogue process to address the Anglophone Crisis. Unfortunately, there was only a three-week interval between the dialogue’s announcement and its start. This was not enough time for the pre-dialogue consultations and preparations required for the process to be a success. The Cameroonian dialogue suffered from the absence of key separatists, federalists, activists and opposition figures – vital stakeholders in the Anglophone Crisis. Separatist leaders boycotted the dialogue process, refusing to participate in any deliberations or commit to its outcomes. The lack of trust in government’s intentions and concerns for security and safety led to separatists and federalists alike declining invitations to participate in the week-long talks.

Cameroon’s dialogue failed to incorporate diverse views or address the root causes of the conflict. The government meticulously avoided discussions around federalism or separation. Efforts to persuade the government to conduct the dialogue on neutral territory with third-party mediation as a way of fostering greater inclusion were rejected. As a result, the dialogue served merely as a smokescreen for international observers, with no genuine intention of finding a lasting solution.

Persistent problems

The issue of inclusion in Cameroon’s dialogue reflects the failures of other African dialogues in many ways.

The pattern of excluding women from the dialogue processes was recently repeated in Chad, where the exclusion of young girls and female activists in the national dialogue undermined the dialogue recommendations. By excluding young girls and female activists it failed to incorporate women’s views and unique experiences. As a result, the dialogue reinforced existing stereotypes and the marginalisation of women. This lack of inclusion is a recurring theme in many African dialogues, including in Cameroon.

In Zimbabwe, calls for a dialogue in 2018 and subsequent attempts to organise one in 2019 and 2020 were marred by a lack of genuine inclusion. The dialogue process in Zimbabwe primarily involved political parties and elites with little consideration for the inclusion of civil society and peacebuilding experts.

Comprehensive agenda-setting is vital to layout out what it means for the dialogue to be successful. In South Sudan, the process did not adequately tackle crucial issues such as power-sharing, resource allocation, and historical grievances. These were the root causes of the Anglophone Crisis and continue to drive the conflict but were not addressed in Cameroon’s dialogue.

The Malian government rejected proposals for international mediation to organize a meeting on neutral ground, as requested by rebels. This pattern of exclusion has also been observed in the Democratic Republic of Congo where rebel groups have refused to participate in talks, citing distrust of the government, concerns about their safety, and a lack of meaningful engagement with their demands.

Such examples highlight the recurrent challenge of inadequate inclusion in peacebuilding dialogues across Africa.

Lessons for future dialogues

It is essential to reflect on the lessons learned from past national dialogues to build more successful processes in the future. National dialogues can become more effective and successful if organisers build trust through social cohesion and create an enabling environment. This will help to ensure the broad-based and genuine participation of relevant stakeholders, including women, separatists, and peacebuilding experts.

Stakeholders should consider hosting dialogues in neutral venues with third-party mediation. This approach will help alleviate trust and security concerns, particularly in the case of rebels and separatist groups.

It is important for dialogue agendas to focus on tackling the underlying drivers of conflict, such as political marginalisation, social inequality, and historical grievances. This involves creating platforms for open and honest discussion, acknowledging past mistakes, and a commitment to concrete actions for redress.

National actors should also consider an ongoing dialogue process that allows for regular reviews, adjustments, and follow-up, rather than treating national dialogues as a one-off event. This will ensure that any issues that arise during the implementation of dialogue resolutions can be addressed and resolved in a timely manner.

The potential success of national dialogues in conflict-affected states relies on embracing inclusivity, transparency, and trust-building measures. Creating an enabling environment and ensuring broad participation from all relevant stakeholders is crucial in fostering lasting peace through dialogues in the region. Learning from the shortcomings of past dialogues will enable other countries to move towards a more inclusive and effective approach in resolving conflicts through national dialogues and foster more peaceful outcomes.

Photo credit: Pexels