The book recently published by Minister Atanga Nji, titled Understanding the Meaning of My Permanent Struggle for Respect of Republican Legality, can be read as a hymn to conservative power, a showcase of his contribution to regime maintenance, and a tribute to the infinite wisdom of President Paul Biya, explains Jean de Dieu Momo.

Here is the analysis:

The discerning reader will note its important contribution to political science and conflict resolution through the theory of ‘imperfect balance’ developed in the book’s postface.

Since 2016, the crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions has escalated into an armed conflict, with some separatist groups demanding the creation of a ‘Republic of Ambazonia’ through secession from Cameroon. The separatist rhetoric is based on a narrative of systemic marginalisation of English speakers by the French-speaking majority. Atanga Nji radically challenges this interpretation, arguing that the tangible achievements of the regime in the two Anglophone regions, his own presence within the state apparatus, and that of many other Anglophone leaders holding positions of responsibility (ministers, directors general of strategic public enterprises or major private sector companies) constitute an empirical refutation of the separatist thesis.

Atanga Nji’s central argument rests on a demonstration by example. As an Anglophone integrated at the top of the state, after a long career in the private sector as a banker and financial expert, he embodies, along with other Anglophones at the heart of power and leadership positions in the private sector, proof that the alleged marginalisation is a politically constructed myth.

This argument, which could be called the thesis of successful integration, is part of a broader strategy of symbolic counter-insurgency: the presence of Anglophones in the highest positions and significant public investments in the two Anglophone regions refute the thesis of systemic discrimination.

The postface of the book catches the distracted reader by surprise with 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 international peace and security, notably President Paul Biya’s speech to 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 asset is peace. Without it, we can undertake nothing durable or effective for the benefit of our youth, our peoples.’

Atanga Nji elevates this presidential intuition to the level of a theoretical paradigm. He starts from the observation that ‘all wars are useless’, in line 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 rests 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 tranquility of humanity, negotiations and especially compromises must be made. To do this, one must accept the policy of the golden mean, which is not necessarily just because there is never a good compromise. Compromise is not necessarily capitulation, because if the belligerents saw compromise as capitulation, armed conflicts would never end.’

The author develops his thought in four structuring propositions:

First proposition: the golden mean is not always just

‘Imperfect balance is a balance that is not always just, but that allows resolving any conflict in the sense of fairness and with a concern for appeasement. In every negotiation, one must remember that the golden mean is not always just, and the balance so sought as a solution to certain conflicts or grievances is not always balanced.’

This proposition is the core of the theory. It asserts that procedural fairness (reaching a settlement) takes precedence over substantive justice (the settlement’s conformity to an ideal of justice). ‘Imperfect balance’ is therefore a functional rather than normative balance.

Second proposition: compromise as mutual renunciation

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

Here the author inscribes the theory in a political economy of gift and renunciation. Negotiation is not a bargain where each party gets what they consider just, but a process where each one ‘does violence to themselves’ 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 like Rawls’.

Third proposition: imperfection as a condition of peace

‘Indeed, balance contains imperfections and one must take them into account when faced with an impasse in negotiations. As soon as one accepts that there is never a good compromise, and that compromise is not necessarily capitulation but common sense, one will always arrive at the logic of the golden mean to put an end to all these conflicts that disturb the tranquility of humanity.’

This proposition operates a classic epistemological inversion: far from being a failure, the imperfection of balance makes it possible. The expectation of a perfect compromise is a source of blockage; acceptance of imperfection is a source of resolution.

Fourth proposition: universality of the logic

‘In negotiations, one should not take too much and should 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 becomes 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 ordinary social relations.

The relevance of this theory for understanding the Anglophone crisis becomes evident when explicitly linking 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 do not represent a quarter of Cameroon’s population nor a sufficient area to justify a demand for equal 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 also undesirable because it would freeze identities and paralyse political decision-making, compromising the policy of national unity sought by successive governments in Cameroon.

‘Imperfect balance’ allows for thinking about an asymmetric but peaceful coexistence: 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 strength of this theory accounts finely for real processes of political negotiation, where actors accept suboptimal solutions to preserve social order. It aligns with the work of rational choice theorists on imperfect ‘Nash equilibria’, as well as Jon Elster’s analyses of 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 completely excluding.

The theory of ‘imperfect balance’ represents the most original contribution of Paul Atanga Nji’s book. By asserting that ‘the golden mean is not always just’, 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 book 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, the mechanisms of legitimation of a regime in permanent tension with its margins, and the way in which integrated Anglophone elites negotiate their dual community and state belonging.