Cameroon: Paul Biya, the Memory of War and the Legacies of Françafrique

Cameroon holds a distinctive place in debates on African independences and Françafrique. The country’s history cannot be reduced to an institutional transition to sovereignty: it is also marked by the repression of the independence movement of the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), the consolidation of a centralised state, and the long-marginalised memory of violence during the colonial and post-independence periods.

Paul Biya has been president of Cameroon since 1982. His exercise of power is regularly examined through two dimensions: control over political competition and the building of networks of loyalty, notably within the administration and the economy. These issues intersect with the enduring relationship between Cameroon and France, as well as with demands for truth and justice regarding the past.

From the independence struggle to Ahmadou Ahidjo’s state

Before and after independence on 1 January 1960, the UPC advocated genuine independence and the reunification of Cameroon. According to research cited in public debate, the repression carried out against this movement caused several tens of thousands of deaths. Acts of torture, bombings and the destruction of villages are also documented in research devoted to this period.

The war remained largely absent from official accounts for a long time. One explanation put forward concerns the territory’s international status, as it was then under United Nations trusteeship: critics argued that the French military deployment there was incompatible with the rules governing that trusteeship. After independence, French intervention was officially justified as assistance provided to the Cameroonian government in the face of the insurgency.

Ahmadou Ahidjo, who was supported by the French administration according to several historical analyses, established an authoritarian regime. The struggle against the UPC and other opposition forces was accompanied by restrictions on the press, movement and political activity. This period helped establish a lasting climate of fear around what is known as the “UPC memory.”

In 1972, the writer Mongo Beti published Main basse sur le Cameroun, a work devoted to the mechanisms of domination and political violence in the country. The book was banned and copies were seized in France shortly after its publication. This episode is frequently cited to illustrate the difficulty of bringing to public attention a history that contradicted official narratives.

Paul Biya and the continuity of the political system

Paul Biya succeeded Ahmadou Ahidjo on 6 November 1982, after notably serving as secretary-general of the presidency and prime minister. Educated in France, he was initially presented as representing a more open approach than his predecessor. Multiparty politics was legalised in December 1990, and the press was then granted a formally more liberal framework.

Nevertheless, researchers, journalists and opposition figures describe a tightly controlled pluralism. The Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM), the presidential party, is accused by its critics of relying on administrative control, clientelism and the marginalisation of opponents. Restrictions targeting critical newspapers, the difficulties encountered by opposition figures in gathering, and the use of military courts in certain cases all fuel these criticisms.

Political scientist Marie-Emmanuelle Pommerolle has studied forms of loyalty within Cameroon’s political order. Public ceremonies, parades and mobilisation during national holidays may constitute displays of patriotic support, but they may also respond to administrative, professional or educational obligations. A public presence alone therefore cannot measure genuine support for a regime.

Clientelism, opacity and social expectations

Critical analyses of Paul Biya’s rule also stress the opacity of public decision-making. His rare public statements and the limited visibility of cabinet meetings are often noted. His critics see this as a highly presidential mode of government, in which initiatives depend on decisions made at the highest level of the state.

This centralisation is linked to infrastructure difficulties and delays in certain major projects. The road connection between Yaoundé and Douala is notably cited as a symbol of the constraints affecting implementation and coordination. Preparations for the Africa Cup of Nations held in Cameroon in 2022 also fuelled debate over delays and the state of facilities.

Insecurity, unemployment among young graduates, rising living costs and allegations of corruption have fuelled strong social discontent. The February 2008 protests against the high cost of living and against the constitutional revision that removed presidential term limits were severely repressed. Activists from the Cameroon Renaissance Movement (MRC) were also convicted by a military court, a situation denounced by their supporters.

Community divisions and fear of repression are regularly cited to explain the difficulty of building lasting nationwide mobilisations. However, it is important to distinguish between the positions of different actors: the authorities invoke public order and the legal framework, while opposition and human rights organisations challenge the conditions under which political and electoral expression takes place.

Resources, companies and debates on Françafrique

The notion of Françafrique refers to the political, economic and diplomatic networks of influence that, in various forms, extended relations between France and several African states after independence. In Cameroon’s case, it is invoked to analyse the presence of French companies in sectors such as bananas, oil and rail transport, as well as the role of the CFA franc.

Critics of this system believe that agricultural, mining and extractive wealth has insufficiently benefited the population and has favoured already influential economic or political groups. Other actors now emphasise the importance of non-French investors and partners, particularly Chinese ones. These developments do not erase the debate over the historical forms of French influence or the conditions for a more balanced relationship.

Reflection on colonial legacies extends beyond Cameroon alone. It also invites us to examine how European expansion, expropriation and the establishment of relations of domination contributed to the formation of the modern global economy. In this respect, the history of the emergence of capitalism and colonial expansion offers useful insight into these long-term dynamics.

The memory of Cameroon’s war: a political issue

Recognition of the violence connected with Cameroon’s war remains a sensitive issue. A commission co-chaired by Karine Ramondy and Blick Bassy was tasked with shedding light on France’s role in Cameroon between 1945 and 1971. Its report revived discussions on access to archives, the human toll, responsibilities and the possible legal classification of the crimes committed.

This process has prompted contrasting assessments. Some regard it as a useful step towards understanding the facts. Others, including historian and publisher Thomas Deltombe, challenge its political framing, its scope and the lack of answers they consider sufficient regarding the objectives of the war, the number of victims or the judicial consequences. These criticisms are not solely about the past: they question the current uses of memory by states.

Memorial debates are thus connected to demands for recognition, apologies or reparations made by certain actors. They also raise a broader question: how can a history be produced that conceals neither colonial violence, nor local responsibilities, nor the diversity of lived experiences? This requirement for precision is essential to prevent memories from becoming instruments of polarisation.

As the analysis of the terms used to discuss slave trades also shows, historical language is never neutral: it can oversimplify, assign indistinct responsibility or prevent an understanding of the diversity of actors and periods. The Cameroonian case calls for the same rigour.

FAQ

Why is the UPC central to Cameroon’s history?

The UPC was one of the principal movements calling for genuine independence and the reunification of Cameroon. Its repression, before and after independence, lies at the heart of debates on colonial violence, the construction of the Cameroonian state and memorial erasure.

What does Françafrique mean in Cameroon?

The term refers to relations of influence maintained after independence between France and Cameroon, notably in political, economic, monetary and diplomatic matters. Its use is debated, but it serves to analyse continuities between the colonial period and postcolonial relations.

Why does the memory of Cameroon’s war remain disputed?

Because it concerns the responsibilities of France, the Cameroonian authorities of the time and the forces involved in the repression. The debates concern archives, the number of victims, the classification of the violence and possible forms of recognition or justice.