Share this:

By Jengu Jengu Guy Beaudry

Introduction

In 2024, 19 African countries are organizing elections (1). More than half of these elections will take place during the last quarter of the year. In French-speaking African countries, more or less violent post-electoral crises (2) are quite common, and similar patterns observed. On one hand, the democratic openings of the 1990s either transformed single-party systems into ruling parties or brought former military personnel to power. On the other hand, the political landscape lacks robust policy platforms and ideological depth (3), and the vibrancy of civil society has rarely persisted past the 2000s. Yet, Cameroon currently has more than 50,000 entities claiming represent civil society (4). It is this civil society that is the focus of this analysis. First, the question of defining African civil society must be addressed, as its conceptualization outside of African democratic contexts and its ubiquitous usage in media make it a somewhat identifiable yet difficult to precisely define phenomenon (5). For the purposes of this work, civil society refers to an “autonomous associative sector, independent from the state” (6). Following Hegel, we distinguish it from political society, recognizing its intermediary position between prominent political actors and families (7). How does civil society deploy itself in Cameroon during the electoral period? The electoral period is divided into three distinct periods: before the election, on the day of the election, and after the election. More than 30 years after the advent of pluralist elections and multipartyism, this work aims to analyze the political, institutional and social logics that inform the practices of civil society during these moments, based on the events of the last presidential election. The objective is to uncover the actual repertoire of action employed by civil society actors during electoral periods in Cameroon, in order to identify ways to promote civic and citizen-oriented behaviors.

A Diverse and Multifaceted Society

“Diverse” is the best descriptor for the heterogeneous nature of Cameroonian non-profit civil society organizations (CSOs) working for the public interest. These CSOs encompass human rights advocacy groups, community development associations, think tanks and research organizations, religious organizations, labor unions and professional associations, independent media, and youth and student movements. In Cameroon, as per Article 2 of Law No. 90/053 of December 19, 1990 on freedom of association: “an association is an agreement by which persons pool their knowledge or activities for a purpose other than the sharing of profits.” Furthermore, associations in Cameroon have considerable autonomy in defining their objectives, which are established in their constituent documents. However, this freedom is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with essential values such as: preserving public safety, maintaining the integrity of national territory, safeguarding the unity of the country, promoting social cohesion, and adhering to republican principles. In the day-to-day management of their regular affairs, CSOs have activities revolving around three main poles: citizen mobilization, monitoring of democratic processes, and improving living conditions for the population. During election periods, the first two areas seem to occupy the majority of the associative scene in Cameroon.

Before the election, CSOs generally focus on citizen mobilization by encouraging voter participation and raising awareness among citizens about the stakes of the different electoral calendars. It was by doing this between May and August 2017 that the “11 million registered” movement (8) stood out to the point of eclipsing other similar initiatives, such as that of the women of the “Les Souverrains” movement who traveled through the rural areas of the Lékié department in the Center region to encourage citizens to register on the electoral rolls (9). This phase of citizen mobilization is generally motivated in Cameroon by the perceived gap between the 6.5 million registered voters and the total population estimated at over 20 million (28 million according to the 2023 World Population Report (10)). Currently, since January 2024, under the impetus of CSOs such as the Active Youth and Citizenship movement, we are witnessing the proliferation of hashtags like #IRegister, #MyVoteCounts, #VoterCard on virtual platforms like Facebook. They are generally accompanied by the slogan: “Do you have your voter’s card?” (11) This call for electoral participation seems to have borne fruits, as the body in charge of elections announced last June that the electoral roll currently stands at 7,823,434 registered voters (12). This is the first time ELECAM has exceeded 7.5 million registered voters. However, during the electoral and post-electoral phases, the concerns of CSOs change.

Monitoring of democratic processes lies at the center of CSO activities during and after the election. Thus, on the eve of the 2011 presidential election, the CSOs Nouveaux Droits de l’Homme and Plate-Forme de la Société Civile pour la Démocratie announced the establishment of the Independent Citizen Electoral Commission (CECI) (13). Conceived as the “people’s ELECAM”, this CECI brought together nearly 400 executives, 9,930 election volunteers, and 93 civil society organizations involved in the process, and aimed to contribute significantly to the organization of a free, transparent, and fair election in 2011. The goal was to restore credibility to the electoral process to once again engage citizens in politics. Similarly, during the 2018 presidential elections in Cameroon, the CSO Dynamique Mondiale des Jeunes deployed 32 young observers to monitor the entire electoral process. These observers were distributed across the seven subdivisions that make up the city of Yaoundé. On election day, their presence was noted in 122 distinct polling stations. Their activities were diverse and included assisting voters to guide them through the voting process, active participation in counting operations, as well as the compilation and recording of results. This approach enabled thorough citizen oversight of the electoral process (14). However, relying on 32 young people to monitor 122 polling stations in one day hints at the human resource challenges faced by CSOs.

A real need for financial and human resources

As we have seen, the Cameroonian associative landscape includes a multitude of CSOs. The scientific literature on the study of CSOs in Cameroon echoes the conclusions of the technical and financial partners who work in tandem with these CSOs to identify two main factors that limit their capacity for action: internal management difficulties and their limited capacities in terms of human and financial resources (15). Their limited financial capacities push them to compete for international funding (16). The direct consequence is their loss of autonomy following the alignment of their various agendas with those of generally Western donors (17). Indeed, the granting of funding is very often subject to the obligation to respect the themes proposed by the donors, even if they do not quite correspond to the initial field of action of the CSO.

Finally, when funds are often allocated, they are not always managed with transparency. Producing accounting documents or obtaining certified accounts as required by donors is not always easy. And some associations are not even legalized. They are confined to the community level and are hardly known to people other than their members and the beneficiaries of their projects. The problem with this way of proceeding is that it considerably reduces their visibility and influence at both the national and international levels. This limited reach affects their ability to establish connections, access resources, and exert influence beyond their immediate area of operation, which is very often where their headquarters are located (18). During a presidential election, this makes it impossible to monitor the 24,990 polling stations recorded by ELECAM.

Furthermore, in an increasingly connected world where social media networks constitute real spaces of mobilization where civil society actors operate (19), a cybersecurity assessment of a few CSOs revealed an urgent need for CSOs to improve their approach to protecting their assets, information, personnel, and systems. Among respondents who indicated they do not have a dedicated person or department for cybersecurity – nearly half of the participants – only 11% said they intend to create one. This percentage is alarming, especially since in the field of technological services, cybersecurity is now considered a strategic priority. This situation highlights a worrying gap between the current practices of these organizations and the digital security standards generally recognized as essential. It is crucial that these entities become aware of the importance of cybersecurity and implement adequate measures to protect their resources and activities in the current digital environment (19).

From all of the above, it is clear that CSOs face a serious problem in terms of the skills needed to properly manage and administer their organizations. The lack of competent human resources explains all these shortcomings. These deficiencies are particularly visible in terms of monitoring and evaluation. These processes require expertise possessed by very few CSOs. This situation considerably limits their ability to obtain substantial funding. Indeed, many grants that could help strengthen the monitoring of democratic processes are inaccessible to them due to the low level of expertise of their staff. Furthermore, CSOs face considerable difficulties in developing competitive responses to tenders, further limiting their funding and growth opportunities.

Conclusion and Recommandations

In summary, Cameroonian civil society plays a crucial role in promoting citizen mobilization, monitoring electoral processes, and political education. These roles could be played more effectively if CSOs can overcome their difficulties in terms of finance and human resources, and if they can work collaboratively with each other and with public authorities.

To conclude, here are a few recommendations addressed to public authorities and CSOs:

To the public authorities, we recommend:

  • Establishing an impartial mechanism to financially support CSOs that act in compliance with republican laws
  • Considering CSOs as partners and facilitating their access to quality information

To CSOs, we recommend:

  • Ensuring transparency in the management of received funds
  • Coming together in associative networks and favoring consortium work
  • Diversifying funding sources to ensure relative autonomy of action.