We were told that Federation was suppressed in 1972 to prevent secessionist tendencies. We were assured that the unitary state was the best way to prevent Secession.
So why did the Amba Boys take up arms 50 years later after the establishment of a unitary state that we were presented with as the extraordinary remedy for Secession?
The English speakers did not take up arms in a Federal State, but in a unitary State which had suppressed the federation supposedly carrying hints of secession!
If the unitary states preserved secession, where did the Amba Boys come from? Of course, I am going to be reminded of the secessionist movements in Nigeria, but at least they are relatively contained.
They do not have the virulence of the English-speaking Secession which has become a subject of major concern for the International Community and against which there is no hope of a military solution.
It may annoy some people, but one thing has to be agreed: the Federal State manages secessionist movements better than the Unitary State.
The examples prove it in Africa: the born federal countries which suppressed the Federation supposedly to consolidate their unit found themselves with a victorious Secession: Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia; only Cameroon remains in this lot.
Those who have had the wisdom to maintain their federation have never experienced this kind of problem: Tanzania and Nigeria with Northern Cameroon.
Particularly in Nigeria, the Biafran Secession is the result of the IBO’s unfortunate attempts to suppress the Federation to impose a unitary state. Once again, no one has said that the federalization of a country removes the Secessions.
These are independent and can appear everywhere, whether the state is federal or unitary, whether it is rich or underdeveloped, whether it is well managed or poorly managed.
The spirit of Secession has nothing to do with the level of development or good governance, contrary to what some argue.
It is a completely independent phenomenon found on all continents: Basques and Catalans in Spain, Corsicans and Basques in France, Ireland in Great Britain, Chechnya in Russia, Tibet in China, Quebec in Canada, etc.
What we say is that the Federal State better contains Secessions through 3 mechanisms:
1: Federalism reduces the attractiveness of the Secession.
In general, people prefer a federal type of autonomy which gives the advantage of being managed like a state while sharing the most expensive positions such as defense, foreign affairs or heavy infrastructure, through the Federal state. The federated state develops a local political universe, endowed with all legitimacy and which is followed by the population who does not feel the permanent oppression of the central power in their life, unlike the DO, SDO and the governors of the unitary state who appear very quickly like the representatives of the colonial authorities;
2: The federal structure complicates attacks against the state:
Indeed, in a unitary state, all collective equipment belongs to it in its own right. The Separatists therefore attack it by destroying schools, roads, hospitals, without arousing public disapproval, since the central state will always make a point of rebuilding them, to assert its presence.
Conversely, in a Federal State, most of the infrastructures belong to the local State and the population does not accept their destruction, at the risk of reconstructing them without any support;
3: The Federation fights the Secession better by opposing it to a local police force which knows better the environment, the federal army coming in support.
When the unitary state directly combats the Secession, it opposes its army, which is made up of people from elsewhere, who have no mastery of sociology or the terrain, and above all, disoriented.
They are “foreigners” who cannot establish relationships of trust with the local population.
The consequence is the proliferation of blunders, as we have today: various massacres, fires, arbitrary arrests, etc.
These are unimaginable things in a Federal State facing a Secession: the local police, recruited from local populations, knows very well who is Secessionist and who is not and how to persuade them to enter the ranks. Its action is more targeted, more precise.
Dieudonné ESSOMBA
Our loose translation