There comes a point in the life of every political movement when slogans cease to be enough. Promises lose their force, explanations become repetitive and citizens begin to judge their government not by what it says it will do, but by what they can actually see, touch and experience.

For Cameroon’s ruling Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM), that moment deserves serious national reflection.

The CPDM was born in Bamenda in March 1985, presenting itself as a new political vehicle for a changing Cameroon. More than four decades later, the party remains at the centre of national political life. Its own anniversary communications continue to associate it with unity, stability, peace and development.

But political longevity inevitably raises a fundamental question: what has all those years in power delivered and what remains to be delivered?

This question cannot be answered by another slogan. It cannot be answered by another promise that development is just around the corner. It cannot be answered by another ceremony, another speech, another political rally or another appeal for patience.

A government that has governed for decades must ultimately be judged against measurable outcomes: employment, electricity, roads, health care, education, security, public services, economic opportunity and the confidence citizens have in their institutions. But Cameroon’s challenges remain substantial.

The International Monetary Fund reported in 2025 that Cameroon needed stronger action on revenue mobilization, financial-sector vulnerabilities, public-financial management and governance including anti-corruption measures. Its 2026 assessment also noted slower growth in 2025, fiscal deterioration and continuing risks associated with reduced aid flows, security challenges and climate pressures.

This is not an argument that nothing has been achieved. There have been investments and areas of economic progress. The African Development Bank, for example, reports continued growth in 2025, supported by sectors including energy, construction and agrifood industries.

But the existence of projects and economic growth does not eliminate the larger political question: are Cameroon’s institutions and political leadership producing results commensurate with the country’s needs and potential? That is the question Cameroonians have every right to ask.

The danger for the ruling CPDM party now is that its political language has eventually become detached from the lived experience of ordinary Cameroonians.

When citizens repeatedly hear about Emergence 2030 while confronting unemployment, difficult public services, insecurity, inadequate infrastructure or limited economic opportunities, political rhetoric begins to lose credibility!

That is where the Cameroon Concord phrase “the CPDM has exhausted its lies” becomes politically powerful—not necessarily as a literal claim that every statement made by every CPDM official is false, but as a description of political exhaustion.

It is vital to state in this editorial that a governing party can exhaust the persuasive power of its old explanations long before it exhausts its ability to govern. That distinction matters. Cameroon does not need another generation of politics built primarily around defending the past. It needs a very serious conversation about the future.

There is also a new reality beyond Cameroon’s borders. International assistance can no longer be treated as an unlimited safety net. The IMF reported that major development partners including the United States, Britain, France and Germany had announced significant reductions in foreign-aid budgets for 2025–27 with potential consequences for Cameroon’s finances and development program.

At the same time, European institutions are committing substantial resources to Ukraine and responding to humanitarian crises in the Middle East and elsewhere. That does not mean Europe or the United States have abandoned Cameroon: the European Union, for example, continues to support Cameroon through its Global Gateway program and has allocated €244 million in grant funding for its 2021–27 partnership.

But the lesson is clear. Cameroon cannot build its future on the assumption that external partners will continually finance development shortfalls. The country must increasingly generate its own prosperity, strengthen its institutions, mobilize domestic resources and create an environment in which citizens and businesses can invest with confidence.

The real test is political credibility. The 2025 presidential election demonstrated that Cameroon remains deeply politically contested. Paul Biya was officially declared the winner with 53.66% of valid votes, while opposition candidate Issa Tchiroma rejected the result and claimed victory. Reuters reported allegations of irregularities and subsequent tensions, while noting that the government rejected those allegations.

Whatever one’s political position, this should lead to a sober conclusion: Political legitimacy cannot depend indefinitely on electoral victory alone. It must also be reinforced by public confidence in institutions, transparency, accountability and credible alternatives. The responsibility therefore extends beyond the CPDM.

Opposition parties and political movements must also demonstrate that they possess more than anger with the incumbent. They must present credible program, competent leadership, internal democracy, realistic economic plans and a convincing vision for a peaceful political transition.

Cameroon cannot afford a politics in which one side merely promises continuity while the other promises change without explaining how that change will be responsibly delivered. The country needs something more demanding: credible political actors capable of turning public frustration into constructive national reform.

The warning signs must not be ignored. The greatest danger is not that one political party may lose its political dominance. The greater danger is that citizens are losing faith in the country’s political system.

When people conclude that elections do not meaningfully change their circumstances, that political promises are interchangeable and that institutions are incapable of responding to their grievances, frustration can migrate from the ballot box into the streets. That is where political systems become vulnerable and that is what we are witnessing today in Anglophone Cameroon.

Cameroon therefore needs political competition that is credible, peaceful and substantive. It needs elections in which citizens can make meaningful choices. It needs institutions capable of commanding confidence across political, regional and generational divides. And it needs leaders prepared to accept accountability for both their promises and their failures.

The next chapter of Cameroon’s political history should not be about whether the CPDM can repeat the arguments that sustained it for decades.

It should be about whether Cameroon can produce a political culture in which performance matters more than slogans, institutions matter more than personalities, and the future matters more than the political mythology of the past.

The CPDM has governed Cameroon for more than four decades. That history cannot simply be erased and neither should every achievement associated with it be dismissed.

But history is not a governing program. Past victories do not constitute future solutions. And political patience is not infinite.

The central question facing Cameroon is therefore no longer simply who has governed the country longest. It is whether the political class—government and opposition alike—can convince a new generation that politics can still deliver security, dignity, opportunity and accountable government.

That is the test. And Cameroon cannot afford to fail it.

To this I put my name

Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

After nearly a decade of bloodshed in Southern Cameroons, Prime Minister Joseph Dion Ngute’s renewed call for peace deserves attention. His recent engagement in Buea with administrative officials, traditional rulers, religious leaders, political and community figures is, in itself an acknowledgement that the conflict cannot simply be allowed to continue indefinitely. Reports from the September 2026 consultations indicate that authorities and community leaders are exploring dialogue, reconciliation and direct engagement with those still involved in the armed conflict.

But the central question is no longer whether Cameroon needs peace. The question is what kind of peace is being pursued and what political courage is required to achieve it.

Dion Ngute should listen again to the message Pope Leo XIV delivered during his April 2026 visit to Cameroon. Speaking to President Biya, the Holy Father said that peace must not be reduced to a slogan. He insisted that genuine peace must be lived and translated into institutional practice. The Pope also stressed that governing requires listening to citizens and involving them in the search for lasting solutions. That message goes to the heart of the Ambazonia crisis.

Peace cannot simply mean persuading a few remaining fighters to lay down their weapons while leaving untouched the political grievances that helped produce the conflict in the first place. Nor can peace be reduced to meetings in Buea, declarations from Yaoundé or the creation of another fund. Peace requires addressing the substance of the dispute.

If Ngute genuinely wants to leave behind a lasting settlement, he has an opportunity that goes beyond convening traditional rulers and religious leaders. As Head of Government and a prominent Anglophone figure, he can take the concerns emerging from the conflict directly to President Paul Biya and insist that the government examine the political questions that have remained unresolved. One such question is the fate of imprisoned Anglophone separatist leaders, including Sisiku Ayuk Tabe.

The Sisiku Ayuk Tabe issue has acquired renewed legal significance. In March 2026, Cameroon’s Supreme Court reportedly annulled the previous appellate proceedings involving Ayuk Tabe and other separatist leaders and ordered a fresh hearing before a differently constituted panel. That development creates an opening for the government to consider whether continued imprisonment is compatible with a broader process of reconciliation and political dialogue.

A comprehensive peace initiative should therefore place the release of political detainees and prisoners connected to the Anglophone conflict on the negotiating table, alongside credible guarantees for justice and accountability for abuses committed by all sides. The second—and perhaps more fundamental—question is constitutional.

There is historical evidence that the Cameroon created at reunification in 1961 was a federation of two constituent states. Cameroon’s own National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism describes the establishment of the Federal Republic of Cameroon on 1 October 1961, while British parliamentary records from the period document the agreement that reunification would take place on a federal basis. The federal system was subsequently replaced by a unitary structure following the 1972 referendum.

Whether a restoration of the 1961 federal arrangement is ultimately acceptable to the Cameroonian state and its citizens is a political question for negotiation. But it cannot simply be dismissed from the peace conversation if it remains one of the central constitutional demands associated with the Ambazonia crisis. Prime Minister Ngute therefore has a choice before him.

Prime Minister Ngute can continue to promote community dialogue, peace funds and appeals to fighters to surrender. Those initiatives may have a role. But if they are not accompanied by a serious examination of the political grievances at the centre of the conflict, they risk treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying dispute unresolved.

Pope Leo’s intervention provides a useful standard: peace must be more than language; it must become reality. During his visit to Bamenda, the Pope listened to traditional, religious and community representatives and emphasized reconciliation and peace in a region deeply affected by the conflict.

For Ngute, the real test is therefore not how many meetings he holds in Buea. It is whether he is prepared to carry the difficult message from the people of the Northwest and Southwest to the highest level of government.

We of the Cameroon Concord News Group are of the opinion that Ngute should sit with President Biya and present an informed assessment of what is required for a political settlement: the humanitarian and legal questions surrounding detained Anglophone leaders, the release or review of cases involving conflict-related detainees, meaningful engagement with representatives of the various sides, and serious consideration of constitutional arrangements—including the federal option that existed at reunification in 1961. That would transform the current peace initiative from another government program into a genuine attempt at political reconciliation.

Dion Ngute has repeatedly occupied a difficult position: he is a senior representative of the government, an Anglophone son of the country with numerous wives coming from both sides of the river Mungo. That gives Ngute an unusual responsibility. His legacy will not ultimately be determined by the number of peace meetings he convenes, nor by the size of a peace fund. It will be judged by whether he used his position to confront the difficult political questions that have kept Cameroon’s English-speaking regions at war.

The time for peace slogans has passed. The time for political courage has arrived. If the current initiative is to succeed, Yaoundé must be prepared not merely to ask the remaining fighters to come out of the bushes, but also to ask what political settlement would make it possible for them—and the communities they claim to represent—to believe that there is a future worth returning to.

That is the deeper meaning of Pope Leo XIV’s message. Peace is not a slogan. It is a political commitment, a constitutional conversation, and ultimately a choice to confront grievances rather than postpone them.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai