No Cabinet, No Clarity: Biya’s Silence Five Months on After Cameroon’s Election

Five months after claiming another presidential mandate amidst cries of fraud, by the opposition, Paul Biya has yet to appoint a new government, a delay that is drawing renewed attention to Cameroon’s chronic governance challenges and the extreme centralization of power in the country.

At 93 years old and in office since 1982, Biya is one of the world’s longest-serving heads of state. In most political systems, the post-election period is marked by the rapid formation of a cabinet to signal policy priorities and restore administrative momentum. In Cameroon, prolonged silence from the presidency has become routine—yet this latest delay comes at a moment of heightened national and regional strain.

Cameroon faces overlapping crises: a separatist conflict in its Anglophone regions that has taken lots of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands, a persistent boko haram threats in the Northern regions, and deepening economic pressures driven by inflation, unemployment, and the ever increasing public debt. Against this backdrop, the absence of a new government has reinforced perceptions of institutional inertia and weakened public confidence in the state’s ability to respond effectively.

Supporters of the president argue that extended consultations are necessary to balance political, regional, and security interests. However, critics counter that the delay exposes a political system so personalised that key state functions appear to stall without direct presidential action. Ministries remain staffed, but strategic direction, particularly in security, economic reform, and social policy, remains unclear.

For international observers, the episode highlights a broader structural problem: elections in Cameroon rarely translate into renewed governance. Cabinet reshuffles tend to recycle long-serving officials, prioritizing loyalty and regime stability over accountability or reform. The prolonged wait for a new government suggests that internal elite negotiations may once again outweigh the urgency of addressing citizens’ needs.

The silence also raises uncomfortable questions about succession and continuity in a country where political transition remains largely unspoken. With power concentrated in the presidency and institutions weakened by decades of centralized rule, uncertainty at the top reverberates throughout the system.

When and if at all a new government is eventually announced, it will be judged not only by its composition but by what the delay itself has revealed. If familiar faces dominate key portfolios, the five-month pause will likely be seen less as strategic caution and more as confirmation of political stagnation.

For Cameroon’s international partners, the episode serves as a reminder that stability built on prolonged inertia carries its own risks. Governance delayed is governance denied—and for millions of Cameroonians, the cost of silence continues to mount. .The wait goes on

Steve Nfor(Retired Senior Journalist)

 

Faith, Power, and the Search for Justice - The Christian Church and Political Leadership in Cameroon

In Cameroon, the Christian Church is seen as one of the most influential voices outside the formal structures of the state. From colonial times to the present, churches have shaped political leadership, social values, and national debate. Their role, though sometimes cautious, sometimes courageous—reveals much about power, conscience, and governance in contemporary Cameroon.

From a historical perspective, Christianity took root in Cameroon through German, British, and French missionary activity. Churches quickly became pillars of education and social organization, training many of the men and women who would later serve as civil servants, politicians, and community leaders. Long before independence in 1960–1961, the Church had already gained moral authority and public trust.

This legacy continues to shape political culture. Church teachings on discipline, leadership, and responsibility helped define early ideas of governance, even as churches themselves navigated the contradictions of working within colonial systems.

From the dawn of independence, governance in Cameroon has operated under a strongly centralized system. Religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, yet political dissent, especially from influential institutions, is closely monitored.

Under President Paul Biya, in power since 1982, churches are officially recognized and generally respected. However, when clergy speak forcefully on governance, corruption, or elections, tensions often emerge. The state expects churches to promote peace and unity, while churches struggle to balance this expectation with their moral duty to speak out against injustice.

The Catholic Church in Cameroon is the most prominent Christian institution in the political sphere. Through pastoral letters and public statements, Catholic bishops have addressed issues such as electoral credibility, corruption, and social inequality. With nationwide schools, hospitals, and charities, the Church’s influence reaches far beyond the pulpit.

Protestant churches, especially the Presbyterian Church in Cameroon, have played a particularly strong role in the North West and South West Regions. Historically shaped by British missionary traditions, these churches have encouraged civic awareness, dialogue, and accountability, especially within Anglophone communities.

Meanwhile, rapidly growing Pentecostal and Charismatic churches tend to avoid open political confrontation. Their emphasis on personal success, prayer, and prosperity attracts millions, but critics argue that this approach is distractive and weakens collective demands for political reform.

The Anglophone Crisis, which began in 2016, has been a defining moment for church–state relations in Cameroon. As violence escalated, Christian leaders emerged as some of the strongest advocates for dialogue, peace, and humanitarian assistance.

Churches offered shelter to displaced persons, called for ceasefires, and urged inclusive national dialogue. In doing so, some clergy faced intimidation, arrest, or accusations of political interference. Yet for many citizens, churches remain among the few institutions trusted to speak honestly about the crisis.

Churches in Cameroon rarely endorse political candidates. Instead, they influence politics indirectly through voter education, moral teaching, and election observation by church-linked civil society groups. Politicians, for their part, frequently attend church services, seeking moral legitimacy and public visibility.

This interaction highlights a delicate balance as the churches are seen to wield influence, but risk losing credibility if they appear partisan.

The Christian Church in Cameroon is at a crossroads. Its contributions to peace, education, and moral leadership are undeniable. Yet it faces persistent challenges such as state pressure, internal divisions, and the temptation to trade prophetic courage for institutional safety.

Therefore, in Cameroon’s complex political landscape, the Church remains a quiet but powerful force. Whether it chooses caution or courage in the years ahead will shape not only its own credibility, but also the broader struggle for justice, dialogue, and accountable leadership in the country.

Steve Nfor(Retired Senior Journalist).

 

YouTube Reactors: Critics or CyberBullies?

Reaction videos are now a staple of online media. From music and movies to politics and viral trends, YouTube creators reacting to other people’s content routinely attract millions of views. But their popularity raises a persistent question: are these creators offering legitimate critique, or engaging in cyberbullying disguised as commentary?

At their best, reaction channels function like modern critics. They add context, explain creative choices, and help audiences interpret complex or controversial material. In these cases, reacting is a form of analysis—no different from a review or opinion column.

Problems arise when commentary shifts from critique to humiliation. Mocking appearance, replaying embarrassing clips, or repeatedly targeting the same individual can invite harassment, even if the creator never explicitly calls for it. Tone matters, and audiences often mirror what they see.

Power imbalance is a crucial factor. When large reaction channels turn their attention on much smaller creators, the impact can be overwhelming. What feels like casual commentary to one creator can feel like public shaming to another.

YouTube itself amplifies the issue. Content driven by outrage and conflict tends to perform better in recommendations, creating incentives for harsher reactions. While the platform has policies against harassment, enforcement remains uneven.

So are YouTube reactors critics or cyber bullies? The answer lies somewhere in between. Some provide thoughtful, responsible commentary; others chase clicks through ridicule and outrage. The difference is not the act of reacting, but intent, tone, and awareness of impact.

As reaction culture continues to shape online discourse, both creators and audiences must decide what kind of commentary they are willing to reward.

Steve Nfor (Retired Senior Journalist)