Cameroon at a Crossroads: When a President Becomes the State
Cameroon stands at a dangerous inflection point. For more than four decades, the country has been governed by one man, President Paul Biya. Now 92, he intends to seek another mandate in October 2025. To many Cameroonians, the presidency has drifted into absence and opacity—often exercised at a distance—while institutions built to check executive power have withered.
On paper, Cameroon is a democracy. In practice, critics argue it functions as a tightly managed system that represses dissent and concentrates power. Analysts point to the 2008 constitutional change scrapping presidential term limits; the lack of a genuinely independent electoral body and judiciary; and a political environment where opposition activity is frequently curtailed as security forces clamp down on public gatherings. Universities, state-owned companies and key arms of the state are seen as extensions of executive authority, not independent actors.
Another grievance is the deliberate instrumentalization of identity. In a country with more than 250 ethnic groups, the placement of allies in strategic posts has fueled perceptions of favoritism and exclusion. Even beyond Cameroon’s borders, critics say the tone of official engagement can reflect narrow networks rather than national representation—further eroding trust.
Across society there is a shared sense of paralysis. Many believe real decisions are taken by a small coterie around the head of state. Ministers have long acknowledged the absence of regular cabinet meetings. Protesters risk arrest; activists and ordinary citizens face intimidation. Yet the system endures because it serves those who benefit from it.
Could a unified opposition force change? Not yet. Ahead of the 2025 vote, dozens of would-be presidential contenders are positioning themselves, often divided by personal ambitions rather than a common reform agenda. Without convergence around a credible program and a single candidate, the prospect of meaningful transition remains remote.
This moment also tests Europe’s credibility. The European Union, and individual states such as Germany, continue to fund projects and extend loans while saying little about governance. If democracy is more than a slogan, partners should align assistance with measurable reforms: independent election administration, protections for free assembly and expression, judicial guarantees, and transparent public finance. Aid that ignores these basics risks entrenching a kleptocratic status quo and dimming the hopes of a young population hungry for opportunity.
Change begins with honesty. Cameroon’s leadership class is elderly—its governing reflexes even more so. Yet the country’s promise is undeniable: a talented youth, abundant resources and a strategic position in Central Africa. What it lacks is political will. Cameroonians need space to organize, safe civic channels to demand accountability, and international partners prepared to back democratic norms—not only with money, but with standards. Without this, frustration will mount and the risk of violent rupture will grow. It is not too late to choose another path. But the time to act is now.