After meeting Prince Albert of Monaco, President Biya appears determined to move ahead with parliamentary and municipal elections, putting aside the possibility of another postponement that had been discussed amid financial constraints and concerns within his ruling Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM) about retaining its parliamentary majority.

Cameroon Intelligence Report sources in Yaoundé the nation’s capital hinted that the prospect of another delay was being ruled out; while a ruling CPDM party official recently suggested that a presidential decree convening voters could be issued on November 6. The elections are expected in 2027, although the formal timetable remains subject to official confirmation.

But beyond the political calculations, the financial considerations and the manoeuvres within the ruling CPDM, there is a much bigger question that deserves national and international attention: Will these elections change anything fundamental about the way Cameroon is governed? The honest answer is that they are unlikely to. Biya, his Minister of State-Secretary General at the presidency Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh including Prime Minister Dion Ngute are very much aware that the problem in Cameroon is bigger than Parliament and town councils.

Cameroon’s political difficulties cannot be reduced to the composition of the National Assembly or the distribution of municipal council seats. They are rooted in a system of governance that has remained largely unchanged for more than four decades.

Since 1982, Biya has occupied the highest office in the land. During this extraordinary period, generations of Cameroonians have been born, educated, entered the workforce and raised families under the same presidency.

The country has witnessed political, economic, technological and demographic transformations across the world. Yet its central political leadership has remained remarkably resistant to renewal. This is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Cameroon’s political predicament.

Parliamentary elections can produce new legislators. Municipal elections can bring new councillors and mayors into office. Opposition parties can win seats, and the ruling CPDM party can retain its majority. These are important democratic exercises. But they do not automatically transform the political architecture within which those institutions operate.

When Biya and his kinsmen remain overwhelmingly dominant! When institutions including the Cameroon Football Federation struggle to exercise genuine independence and when political accountability remains inadequate, changing the occupants of parliamentary and municipal offices risks becoming an exercise in political rearrangement rather than national renewal. We of this publication believe that our nation does not simply need different faces in familiar offices but a fundamentally different approach to leadership and governance.

Much of the political conversation surrounding the forthcoming elections appears preoccupied with whether the CPDM will retain its parliamentary majority. That is understandable from the perspective of a governing party seeking to preserve its political influence. But the interests of a political party must never be confused with the interests of an entire nation.

The central question should not be whether the CPDM wins more seats or whether the opposition manages to take a greater share of parliamentary representation. It should be whether the political process produces institutions capable of addressing the everyday concerns of ordinary Cameroonians.

Can the next Parliament guarantee stronger oversight of public expenditure? Can it hold the executive accountable? Can it confront corruption without political interference? Can it create an environment in which public resources serve the public rather than privileged interests?

Can municipal councils deliver better roads, sanitation, healthcare infrastructure, employment opportunities and essential services? These are the questions that matter.

A National Assembly and a Senate that merely endorses executive decisions, regardless of the number of opposition legislators it contains, will not deliver the democratic transformation Cameroon needs. Equally, municipal councils that lack meaningful autonomy and adequate resources cannot be expected to revolutionise local development. Cameroon needs institutions that work, not simply institutions that exist.

There is something profoundly troubling about a nation of more than 30 million people continuing to organise its political future around the leadership of one incompetent individual who has occupied the presidency since the early 1980s. Political renewal is not an insult to that individual. It is a democratic necessity.

Cameroon needs help from its diaspora and a new generation of political leadership with fresh ideas. Cameroon needs a head of state who understands that leadership is not measured by the number of years spent in office, but by the quality of life citizens enjoy under that leadership. Cameroon needs a decent man or woman as head of state that places national development above party survival. Above all, Cameroon needs a president who recognises that public office is a responsibility entrusted by the people, not a permanent possession. A new head of state therefore is the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it. A change of president in Yaoundé must therefore represent more than a change of personality. It must mark a change of political culture.

It is evidently clear that the current presidency does not understand the pain of being unemployed, the frustrations of young graduates, the struggles of small businesses, the deteriorating conditions of public services and the legitimate demand for greater political participation. Cameroon cannot continue to postpone its future while repeatedly rearranging the institutions of its present.

Parliamentary and municipal elections remain important. Cameroonians should not be discouraged from participating in them, nor should the significance of representation at the national and local levels be dismissed. However, the population must not be persuaded that another electoral exercise, by itself, constitutes the political transformation the country requires.  The national debate must go further.

Cameroon must begin to think beyond the political arrangements that have defined its past four decades. It must confront the question of succession, leadership renewal and the kind of country it wants to become over the next generation. The future cannot indefinitely remain hostage to the political calculations of one party or the decisions of one individual popularly known as “we thank the head of state”.

Another Parliament may emerge, another Senate may be born and another generation of mayors may take office. The CPDM may even retain its so-called majority, or the opposition may make gains. But unless these developments are accompanied by a fundamental change in the country’s political direction, the ordinary Cameroonian may wake up the morning after the elections to discover that very little has changed.

Biya and his gang must therefore recognise the distinction between holding elections and achieving democratic renewal. Our nation needs more than another electoral calendar. It needs more than another parliamentary majority. It needs more than a reshuffling of political positions. It needs a new head of state, a new political vision and a new social contract with its people.

After more than four decades under the same president, the argument for political renewal is no longer premature. It is a legitimate and urgent national conversation. The next chapter of Cameroon’s history must be about the country and its people, not the indefinite continuation of one man’s political era.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

The United Republic of Cameroon or the Republic of Cameroon as it is popularly known now stands at a crossroads. As Cameroons looks towards the parliamentary and municipal elections expected in early 2027, a fundamental question demands an honest answer: how long can a country continue to look to the same political leadership for solutions to problems that have persisted for decades?

Paul Biya has been at the helm of state affairs since 1982. For more than four decades, his name has been inseparable from the country’s political landscape. Yet the passage of time inevitably raises questions about political renewal, institutional accountability and the direction in which the nation is heading.

We of the Concord Group now think Cameroon needs more than another electoral cycle. It needs a new idea, a new vision and a serious national conversation about the future of its leadership.

The United Republic or the Republic of Cameroon is a nation blessed with natural resources, fertile land, a strategic geographical position and a population rich in talent and ambition. Its young people possess ideas, energy and the desire to build a prosperous country. Yet many continue to confront unemployment, limited economic opportunities, inadequate public services and uncertainty about their future.

The crisis in the English-speaking regions, the persistent security challenges in parts of the Far North and the wider difficulties of national cohesion have also placed enormous demands on the ruling CPDM crime syndicate. These challenges require more than familiar speeches and promises. They demand policies that produce measurable results, institutions that command public confidence and leadership that is prepared to confront difficult questions.

The issue is not simply how long Biya has been in office. It is whether Cameroon’s political system is creating the conditions for a better future for the next generation. Longevity in power cannot by itself be the measure of national progress.

The anticipated 2027 parliamentary and municipal elections should be an opportunity for Cameroonians to examine the record of their representatives, debate competing visions and demand credible commitments from those seeking public office.

For the ruling Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM), retaining a parliamentary majority may remain an important political objective. But the national interest must extend beyond the fortunes of any party. A political system cannot be judged solely by its ability to preserve power; it must also be judged by its ability to respond to citizens’ needs.

Opposition divisions are a real political challenge. When opposition parties struggle to cooperate, develop a shared program or build public trust, they risk weakening their ability to present a credible alternative. But opposition unity should not be reduced to a temporary arrangement designed only to defeat the ruling party. It must be founded on a clear program for governance, economic opportunity, national reconciliation and institutional reform.

At the same time, ELECAM’s credibility matters. Cameroonians must be able to participate freely, candidates must have a fair opportunity to compete and ELECAM must operate transparently. The legitimacy of elected representatives depends not merely on the announcement of results, but also on public confidence in the process that produces them.

A new idea does not mean rejecting everything that came before. It means recognising that a country’s needs change and that its institutions must evolve with them.

Cameroon needs a political vision that places young people at the centre of economic policy; treats education and healthcare as foundations of development; supports farmers, entrepreneurs and small businesses; and confronts corruption through transparent institutions and consistent enforcement of the law.

Cameroon needs a government that serves citizens rather than asking citizens to organise their lives around the state. It needs stronger local government, capable of addressing community priorities and using public resources responsibly. It needs a renewed commitment to national unity, one that recognises the country’s linguistic, cultural and regional diversity while protecting the equal dignity of all its citizens. Above all, Cameroon needs a political culture in which leadership is understood as a public responsibility not a permanent entitlement.

These reforms cannot be delivered by slogans alone. Any political movement including the ruling CPDM proposing a new direction must explain how it would finance its promises, strengthen public institutions, improve public services and measure progress. A new generation of leadership must be judged by the substance of its program as well as the credibility of its conduct.

The call for a new head of state is ultimately a call to open a serious debate about political succession and democratic renewal. Biya’s long tenure makes this question unavoidable. But a change of president, on its own, would not automatically resolve Cameroon’s challenges. Without institutional reform, greater accountability and a clear program of national development, a new leader could inherit the same problems and reproduce the same political habits.

The real task is therefore twofold: to create a credible pathway for leadership renewal and to build institutions strong enough to serve the country regardless of who occupies the Unity Palace. Any transition must respect the Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of citizens. It should also be peaceful, transparent and grounded in the principle that public office derives its legitimacy from the people.

Cameroonians deserve a meaningful debate about the qualities they expect from their next head of state: integrity, openness to scrutiny, respect for democratic institutions, an ability to build consensus and a demonstrable commitment to improving ordinary people’s lives. These are not the exclusive qualities of any party or political generation. They are standards by which all aspiring leaders should be assessed.

Cameroon’s future cannot be reduced to the political survival of one party, the ambitions of one opposition coalition or the tenure of one individual. The country is larger than its political class, and its aspirations extend beyond the next election.

The parliamentary and municipal elections expected in 2027 should therefore serve as a moment of national reflection. What kind of country do Cameroonians want to build? What economic opportunities should be available to their children? How can peace be restored and trust rebuilt? What institutions will protect public resources and ensure that leaders answer to the people? These questions deserve serious answers from the ruling CPDM party, the opposition and civil society alike.

After more than four decades under the same president, the debate over political succession is not simply about personalities. It is about whether Cameroon can create a political system that renews itself, welcomes new ideas and responds effectively to the aspirations of its people.

Cameroon needs a new idea because its challenges demand fresh thinking. It needs a credible process of leadership renewal because no nation should confuse continuity with progress. And it needs a future in which the quality of governance matters more than the duration of any individual’s rule.

The time has come for Cameroon to place national renewal at the centre of its political debate. The country’s next chapter should be defined not by the question of who can remain in power, but by the more important question of how power can be used to build a peaceful, prosperous and accountable state for all Cameroonians.

By Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai

Paul Biya’s silence is becoming a political statement in its own right. A year after his so-called re-election, his ruling CPDM party remains without a clear public timetable for next year’s polls. The party that has dominated Cameroon for decades appears increasingly uncertain about the political calendar, while its own political bureau and its own Central Committee reportedly feels sidelined by a presidency increasingly associated with the powerful Minister-Secretary General, Ferdinand Ngoh Ngoh. That is not a normal situation for a ruling party.

In a political system built around the authority of one man, presidential silence cannot easily be dismissed as an accident, an oversight or mere administrative delay. When the head of state says little at precisely the moment when his party, government and electorate need clarity, the silence itself acquires meaning.

Biya’s silence is not accidental. It is deliberate in its political effect, whether or not its original cause is known.

For months, Cameroonians have been left to speculate. Is Biya preparing a major political decision? Is there a struggle over succession and control of the electoral timetable? Has power increasingly shifted toward those operating around the Unity Palace? Or is Biya simply unable, unwilling or not yet ready to publicly address the questions confronting his party and country?

The authorities have offered little that convincingly settles these questions. And that vacuum matters and includes the passing into eternity on Sunday of Clément Atangana, president of Cameroon’s Constitutional Council in France.

In politics, information does not disappear simply because a government refuses to provide it. It is replaced by speculation. The longer the silence continues, the more room there is for rumours to become political narratives. This is particularly true when the speculation concerns the president’s health.

It would be irresponsible to present rumours about Paul Biya’s health as established fact without credible evidence. But it would be equally irresponsible for the authorities to ignore the political consequences of a prolonged absence of presidential communication. When a president becomes unusually silent, when his ruling party appears uncertain about its own timetable and when questions about who is actually driving decisions begin to dominate public discussion, the government cannot reasonably expect citizens to remain indifferent.

We of the Cameroon Concord Group believe and fervently too that silence does not prove illness. But silence can make the speculation about illness harder to contain. That is the uncomfortable political reality facing the Biya system today in Yaounde.

The CPDM’s apparent unease is therefore significant. A ruling party even in North Korea or Iran should not have to guess about the intentions of the president under whose authority it operates. Its militants, officials and potential candidates need clarity. The electorate deserves clarity. The state itself requires clarity.

Instead, Cameroon appears to be drifting into another period in which uncertainty at the top is becoming a political fact. And the deeper problem is not simply whether Paul Biya is healthy or ill. The deeper problem is that Cameroon has built a political system so heavily dependent on one individual that even his silence can produce institutional paralysis and national anxiety. That is the real indictment.

If Biya is fully in command, he can end the speculation with a clear political message. If important decisions are being prepared, the public deserves to know enough to understand the direction of the country. If the CPDM has a timetable, it should not have to discover it through rumours or leaks. And if there are genuine concerns about the president’s capacity to govern, the responsibility of the state is not to hide behind silence but to provide institutional clarity.

After more than four decades at the centre of Cameroonian politics, Paul Biya knows better than all of us in the Concord Group that presidential silence is never politically empty. Every day that it continues, it says something. The question is no longer simply what is Paul Biya going to say? The more consequential question is why is a president whose political authority has shaped Cameroon for so long choosing not to say it? Until that question is answered, speculation will continue to fill the vacuum. And increasingly, Biya’s silence itself is becoming the story.

To this I put my name

Soter Tarh Agbaw-Ebai