ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Can Cameroon Learn from the Process That Saved Canada?

Comparative Politics
Conflict Resolution
Constitutions
Federalism
Governance
State Power
Nancy Ngum Achu
Near East University
Nancy Ngum Achu
Near East University

To access full paper downloads, participants are encouraged to install the official Event App, available on the App Store.


Abstract

The Anglophone Crisis (Ambazonia) in Cameroon represents a critical instance of ethno-national conflict escalating into protracted civil war following the collapse of constitutional accommodation. Since 2016, the failure of the centralized Yaoundé government to substantively address historical grievances related to linguistic and political marginalization has resulted in widespread violence, a severe humanitarian catastrophe, and a non-negotiable demand for secession from the English-speaking regions. Current state-led solutions, such as the Major National Dialogue (2019), have been widely criticized for their top-down, coercive nature and lack of democratic legitimacy among Anglophone populations, leading to policy failure and conflict entrenchment. This paper addresses a central question in Comparative Politics and conflict studies: when state institutions fail to resolve deep-seated secessionist demands, can procedural, legalistic mechanisms drawn from successful conflict management cases in other multinational democracies offer a pathway to de-escalation and constitutional renewal? Using a controlled comparison methodology, this study juxtaposes the Anglophone Crisis with the successful management of the Quebec secession threat in Canada, specifically focusing on the institutional and legal innovations that secured the Canadian federation. Canada, a plurinational state facing an existential threat after the near-success of the 1995 Quebec referendum, consciously moved the debate away from political brinkmanship to a democratically legitimate constitutional process. The key mechanism, the Clarity Act (2000), demilitarized the secession issue by establishing the constitutional and democratic conditions (i.e., a clear question and a clear majority) required for the federal government to enter negotiations regarding sovereignty. By codifying the "rules of disengagement," Canada shifted the conflict from the street to the legislature, anchoring future self-determination claims within a framework of democratic principle and judicial review. The central argument advanced here is that Cameroon’s primary lesson from Canada is not the adoption of de jure federalism alone, but the vital necessity of implementing Constitutional Clarity. The paper contends that Cameroon’s violent impasse is sustained by the deliberate ambiguity regarding the legal pathway for self-determination. By contrast, a process that establishes mutually recognized rules, transparent thresholds, and judicial oversight; the spirit of the Canadian response can transform the conflict dynamic from an insurgency against the state to a political struggle within a recognized constitutional system. This research contributes significantly to the scholarship on African security and governance by challenging conventional statist solutions and re-introducing the Anglophone crisis into the core debate on ethno-federalism and crisis-era institutional design. By demonstrating the transnational portability of procedural clarity as a conflict-resolution tool, this paper offers a rigorous, policy-relevant normative framework for managing secessionist pressures in deeply divided societies, offering hope for a constitutional solution to one of Africa’s most devastating protracted social conflicts.