The Anglophone Cameroon Predicament
This study explores the predicament of Anglophone Cameroon – from the experiment in federation from 1961 to the political liberalisation struggles of the 1990s – to challenge claims of a successful post-independence Cameroonian integration process. Focusing on the perceptions and actions of people in the Anglophone region, Atanga argues that what has come to be called the “Anglophone Problem” constitutes one of the severest threats to the post-colonial nation-state project in Cameroon. As a linguistic and cultural minority, Anglophone Cameroonians realised that the Francophone-led state and government were keener in assimilation than in implementing the federal and bilingual nation agreed upon at reunification in 1960. Calls for national integration became simply a subterfuge for the assimilation of Anglophones by Francophones who dominated the state and government. The book details the various measures undertaken to exploit the Anglophone region’s economy and marginalise its people. Principally the economic structures meant to facilitate self-reliant development were undermined and destroyed. Institutionalised discrimination took the form of the exclusion of Anglophones from positions of real authority, and depriving the region of any meaningful development. With the advent of multi-party politics, most Anglophone Cameroonians increasingly have made vocal demands for a return to a federation, in order to adequately guarantee their rights and recognition for them as a political and cultural minority. Actively encouraged by France, the Francophone-led regime in Cameroon has refused to yield to such demands, despite the grave danger of violent conflict and possible secession.
Constitutions and Citizenship: Lessons for African Countries
Summary Since the colonial period in Africa, ruling elites have manipulated laws regulating citizenship to advance their political and economic interests. The European colonialists used citizenship laws to enhance their ability to maintain control over the colonies and minimize the ability of Africans to fight for independence. Many Africans believed that independence and the establishment of new institutional arrangements would allow them to develop a common national citizenship, one in which all the citizens of each country would have equality before the law and be granted equal opportunity for self-actualization within all parts of the country, regardless of their racial or ethnic affiliation. However, in the post-independence period, incumbent political elites have been acting like their colonial counterparts and have used citizenship laws to get rid of critical and opposing voices by depriving these people of their nationality. In 1996, for example, Zambia’s ruling political party, the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), adopted a new constitution, which effectively stripped the country’s independence president, Kenneth Kaunda, of his Zambian citizenship and prevented him from challenging the MMD for leadership of the country. Similarly, in 2000, then president of Côte d’Ivoire, Henri Konan Bédié, changed the constitution and introduced a citizenship clause that effectively disqualified the candidacy of his main opposition, Alassane Ouattara. South Africa’s apartheid regime, on the other hand, introduced a racially-based multilayered citizenship system in which individuals of European origin were placed at the top, enjoying full citizenship rights, and Africans were relegated to the bottom with extremely attenuated citizenship rights. Some African groups were actually forced to lose their South African citizenship. Citizenship is a complex issue and one that citizens of a country must deal with. The paper suggests that in doing so, African countries must not allow citizenship to be defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or other ascriptive traits, but by allegiance or fidelity to a set of values or ideals (e.g., democracy, rule of law, equality before the law) that define the nation.
Cambodian refugee health care beliefs and practices.
Since 1975, when refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia first began coming to the United States, many articles have been written about Southeast Asian or Indochinese refugees and health care. A careful review of the literature shows that most of these articles have one thing in common: they are written primarily about Vietnamese and do not address the unique health care beliefs and practices of Lao or Cambodian refugees.1 Although some beliefs and practices are common to most Southeast Asians, many are not. Understanding at least that differences exist, and hopefully what some specific differences are, will allow nurses and others to give better care to the various people commonly grouped together as Southeast Asians. This article will introduce readers to some Cambodian beliefs and practices related to health care. Of the principle refugee groups admitted to the U.S. since 1975, the Cambodians are presenting the greatest challenges to health care providers. Cambodians are usually poorly understood by Americans, their health status statistics are hidden among the broad category of "Asian-Pacific Islanders" or "Indochinese Refugees," and cultural and institutional barriers combine to make access to care an overwhelming problem. The end results, of course, are more problems and more expense for the Cambodians, increased stress placed on an already terribly overstressed people, and ultimately greater demands and expense placed on the health care system. One of the most common misunderstandings about Cambodians is that they (and Lao) are basically the same as the Vietnamese. "They speak the same dialect don't they?" There are some similarities, but there are also very significant differences.