Atanga Nji and the theory of imperfect balance: a contribution to political thought in Cameroon

The work recently published by Minister Atanga Nji, entitled “Understanding the meaning of my permanent struggle for respect of republican legality”, can be read alternately as a hymn to the conservatism of power, as a showcase where he displays his very rich contribution to maintaining the regime, or as a praise to the infinite wisdom of President Paul Biya.

However, the discerning reader will highlight his important contribution to political science and conflict resolution through the theory of ‘imperfect balance’ that he develops in the postface of his book.

Since 2016, the crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions has degenerated into an armed conflict, with some separatist groups demanding the creation of a ‘Republic of Ambazonia’ through the secession of Cameroon. Separatist rhetoric relies on a narrative of systemic marginalisation of Anglophones by the Francophone majority. Atanga Nji radically challenges this reading, arguing that the tangible achievements of the regime in the two Anglophone regions, his own presence within the state apparatus, as well as that of many other Anglophone leaders occupying positions of responsibility (ministers, general managers of strategic public enterprises or important companies in the private sector), constitute an empirical refutation of separatist theses.

Atanga Nji’s central argument rests on a demonstration by example. As an Anglophone integrated at the top of the state, after having worked for a long time in the private sector, notably as a banker and finance expert, he embodies, along with other Anglophones present at the heart of power and in leadership positions in the private sector, the proof that the alleged marginalisation is a politically constructed myth. This argumentation, which could be called the thesis of successful integration, fits into a broader strategy of symbolic counter-insurgency: the presence of Anglophones in the highest responsibilities and significant public investments in the two Anglophone regions disprove the thesis of systemic discrimination.

The postface of the work takes the distracted reader by surprise, through the development of what the author calls the ‘logic of imperfect balance’, presented as a guiding principle for managing conflicts, disputes and negotiations. This theory extends the presidential reflection on peace and international security, particularly Paul Biya’s speech at the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly:

‘The quest for peace concerns us all. All countries must work for its advent.’

‘Our most precious good is peace. Without it, we can undertake nothing lasting, nothing effective for the benefit of our youth, our peoples.’

Atanga Nji raises this presidential intuition to the rank of theoretical paradigm. He starts from the observation that ‘all wars are useless’, in accordance with the general principle of humanity and international bodies like the UN. However, he introduces an essential nuance: the distinction between legitimate self-defence and war for war’s sake. According to him, there is a ‘legitimate war’, that against terrorism, which justifies the use of force by a legitimate government.

The theory of imperfect balance is based on a critique of the ideal of perfect compromise. Atanga Nji argues that the search for absolute balance, for total distributive justice in negotiations, is not only illusory but counterproductive. He writes:

‘To put an end to all these justified or useless conflicts that disturb the tranquillity of Humanity, we must make negotiations and especially compromises. To do this, we must accept the policy of the middle ground which is not necessarily just because there is never a good compromise. Compromise is not necessarily compromise, because if the belligerents took compromise for compromises, armed conflicts would never end.’

The author develops his thinking in four structuring propositions:

First proposition: the middle ground is not always fair

‘The imperfect balance is a balance that is not always fair, but which allows resolving any conflict in the sense of equity and with a concern for appeasement. In every negotiation, it must be remembered that the middle ground is not always fair, and the balance so sought as a solution to certain conflicts or grievances is not always balanced.’

This proposition constitutes the heart of the theory. It affirms that procedural equity (reaching a settlement) takes precedence over substantive justice (the conformity of the settlement to an ideal of justice). The ‘imperfect balance’ is therefore a functional rather than a normative balance.

Second proposition: compromise as reciprocal renunciation

‘The sense of compromise sometimes implies doing violence to oneself by accepting to lose something very dear in order to regain peace or to resolve a difficult political, economic or social equation.’

The author here inscribes the theory within a political economy of gift and renunciation. Negotiation is not a bargaining where each party gets what it deems fair, but a process where each ‘does violence to oneself’ to preserve the collective order. This sacrificial dimension of compromise brings Atanga Nji’s thought closer to theories of hierarchical contractualism rather than egalitarian contractualism à la Rawls.

Third proposition: imperfection as a condition for peace

‘Indeed, balance contains imperfections and this must be taken into account when faced with deadlock in negotiations. As soon as we accept that there is never a good compromise, and that compromise is not necessarily compromise but common sense, we will always arrive at the logic of the middle ground to put an end to all these conflicts that disturb the tranquillity of Humanity.’

This proposition operates a classic epistemological inversion: far from being a failure, the imperfection of balance makes it a condition of possibility. Waiting for a perfect compromise is a source of blockage; accepting imperfection is a source of resolution.

Fourth proposition: universality of the logic

‘In negotiations, one must not take too much and one must not give everything. The logic of imperfect balance must henceforth be integrated into international negotiations at all levels of discussion, whatever the subject, so that the world may be more peaceful, less selfish and less dangerous. […] The logic of imperfect balance can now be perceived as a guide for Humanity. It is valid at all levels of life.’

Atanga Nji thus elevates his theory to the rank of a universal principle of governance, applicable to international relations as well as to ordinary social relationships.

The relevance of this theory for understanding the Anglophone crisis becomes apparent when one explicitly links the two registers of the author’s thought. The thesis of Anglophone marginalisation, according to Atanga Nji, stems from an unrealistic expectation of perfect balance: numerical equality (the two Anglophone regions represent neither a quarter of Cameroon’s population nor a consequential area justifying a demand for strict parity), strict parity (it is illusory to demand strict parity solely on the basis of the coloniser’s language), institutional symmetry between linguistic communities (it would be dangerous for national cohesion to reason in terms of spoken language when neither of the two official languages belongs to Cameroon). However, such a balance is not only impossible in a composite society like Cameroon, which has four cultural areas, but is also undesirable because it would freeze identities and paralyse political decision-making, compromising the policy of national unity so sought after by successive public authorities in Cameroon.

The ‘imperfect balance’ allows thinking of an asymmetrical but peaceful cohabitation: Anglophones do not have strict proportional representation, but they undeniably occupy key positions; they do not benefit from pure federalism, but they participate in the direction of the state. This equity in inequality — to borrow a classic formula — constitutes according to the author the only realistic horizon for Cameroon.

The heuristic force of this theory accounts in a subtle way for the real processes of political negotiation, where actors accept suboptimal solutions to preserve social order. It joins the work of rational choice theorists on imperfect ‘Nash equilibria’, as well as the analyses of Jon Elster on the rationality of renunciation. It also offers a framework for understanding the relative stability of the Cameroonian regime despite structural tensions: the managerial expertise of President Paul Biya’s power consists precisely in his ability to manage imperfect balances, to partially satisfy without ever totally excluding.

The theory of ‘imperfect balance’ represents the most original contribution of Paul Atanga Nji’s work. By stating that ‘the middle ground is not always fair’, that ‘the balance so sought […] is not always balanced’, and that peace requires ‘accepting to lose something very dear’, the author proposes a framework for thinking about political negotiation that shifts the emphasis from substantive justice to procedural viability.

Paul Atanga Nji’s work constitutes a political document of exceptional richness for the researcher in African political science. It offers a window into the discourse of Cameroonian power in the era of National Renewal, into the mechanisms of legitimisation of a regime in permanent tension with its margins, and into the way integrated Anglophone elites negotiate their dual community and state belonging.