The Reality of Tribalism in Cameroon: A Social Divide Beyond Ethnicity
Journalist Jean Claude Mbede Fouda, currently living in exile, has reported that social stratification, rather than regional origin, is the primary driver of tribalist tensions in Cameroon. According to Mbede Fouda, a significant divide exists between those with access to elite institutions—such as the IRIC, ESSTIC, ENAM, and EMIA—and those who rely on informal labor for survival.
The report centers on a recent interaction between Mbede Fouda and a professional acquaintance from the Grand Nord region. Despite her background as the daughter of a customs official and her graduation from prestigious institutions like ESSTIC and IRIC, the individual claimed that the national climate favors the Beti ethnic group. Mbede Fouda characterizes this rhetoric as a form of “tribalism of the privileged,” noting that the individual dismissed his 20-year exile as a consequence of personal pride rather than systemic issues.
The institutions identified by Mbede Fouda—including the IRIC and ESSTIC—are described as highly exclusive, with access often facilitated through connections to established elites rather than merit alone.
The Social Basis of Inequality
Mbede Fouda argues that the traditional narrative of ethnic conflict acts as a distraction from the socioeconomic reality of the country. He categorizes the population into two distinct groups: those who hold the “keys to the system” and secure positions for their children in top-tier schools, and the rest of the population, described as children of “struggling mothers” who often work in informal sectors to survive.
This perspective suggests that the discourse surrounding tribalism is frequently employed by those already benefiting from the system to deflect attention from their own advantages. By framing the struggle as regional, these individuals mask a deeper, class-based inequality that persists regardless of ethnic identity.
The account provided by Mbede Fouda highlights the psychological and social costs of systemic exclusion. When individuals in positions of privilege utilize the language of marginalization, they may effectively invalidate the experiences of those who have faced genuine displacement or long-term exile.
Implications for Future Social Discourse
The rejection of this narrative by Mbede Fouda—who chose to block his acquaintance following their conversation—signals a potential shift in how some observers are addressing these tensions. By refusing to engage with what he terms the “tribalism of the privileged,” he advocates for a focus on the structural “mangeoire” (the system of patronage) rather than ethnic finger-pointing.
Observers may expect that if this critique gains traction, public discourse regarding tribalism in Cameroon could shift toward examining class barriers. Future discussions on this topic are likely to face resistance from those who benefit from the current social hierarchy, as the existing framing of regional conflict serves to protect the status quo of the elite.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the author identify as the true cause of social tension?
According to Mbede Fouda, the true divide in Cameroon is social rather than regional, existing between a wealthy, well-connected elite and the general population struggling for survival.
How does the author characterize the role of elite institutions?
He describes schools like the ESSTIC and IRIC as institutions where access is often managed by elites to secure the futures of their children, regardless of the relative brilliance of the candidates.
Why did the author end his relationship with his acquaintance?
Mbede Fouda stated he ended the relationship because he has no tolerance for “tribalism of the privileged,” noting that the individual used her status to minimize his 20-year exile and suffering.
How can society better address the distinction between ethnic identity and systemic privilege in public discourse?