In a recent open letter, journalist Georges Dougueli responds to accusations from professor Mathias Eric Owona Nguini, who claimed Dougueli was “speculating on the death of President Paul Biya.” Dougueli defends journalistic speculation and turns the critique back on Owona Nguini.
Here is Dougueli’s full response:
WHO IS OWONA NGUINI ADDRESSING?
“Dougueli speculates on the death of President Biya.” Among all the inflammatory statements made on June 26 by Mr. Owona Nguini on a television channel, this one flooded my inbox. What can I say? Dear sir, “speculating” on the death of heads of state is part of my job. For real journalists, nothing is sacred. Newsrooms sometimes write obituaries for public figures before they die. Even former French President François Mitterrand, who had little appreciation for the press, called journalists “dogs.” Every shrewd politician endures this pack. President Biya himself knows this well. Perhaps it is the security zealots that the speaker intends to hand me over to who need reminding. You cannot properly cover state affairs without examining the health of those who embody it. So I ask: whom is this diatribe aimed at? It may be useful to sketch a quick sociology of the target audience of this television agitator.
1. IS HE ADDRESSING THE “EKANG” SUPREMACISTS?
Here we enter the political arena in which this demagogue operates, recklessly tossing around dangerous and inflammatory concepts. When he tirelessly repeats “I am a lord,” some see only childish megalomania. But that overlooks the deep influence of Laburthe Tolra on his thinking. It was Owona Nguini who distorted and popularized the concept of “Ekang,” from Mvett mythology. According to French anthropologist Philippe Laburthe Tolra, the Ekang – these “lords of the forest” – allegedly descended from the banks of the Nile to colonize the equatorial forest. Mr. Owona Nguini, taking the French researcher’s thesis literally, believes this population – which migrated to Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, and Congo – is destined to rule those territories. In Gabon, where the Fang people (40% of the population) are deeply steeped in Mvett culture, especially through the work of Tsira Ndong Ntoutoume, the danger of this supremacist singling out of the “Ekang” has been recognized. During the 2009 presidential election, it manifested as TSF (“Tout sauf les Fangs” – Anything but the Fangs), a rejection expressed by non-Fang populations. So the “Ekang” concept did not cross Cameroon’s southern border. What does this have to do with Fecafoot? Answer: For Owona Nguini, as for Carl Schmitt, politics means designating the enemy. Yesterday it was the “Ntaalibams” of “Uncle Maurika.” Today, the designated enemy is the so-called “reserve” constituted by the “Eglisiens” – those fanatics who “will create problems.” How, for whom, why? Let this bazaar Mephistopheles tell us. But I know that, in the coming times, this professional intellectual-university agitator, endowed with the restraint and finesse of a bull in a China shop, will end up creating real problems himself.
2. HE IS ADDRESSING THE RULING CASTE AGAINST THE RABBLE
Who can believe that Samuel Eto’o’s supporters, given the unprecedented harassment he has faced since 2021, are all “brainless” or paid thugs? By sounding the charge against the “illiterate” head of Fecafoot, his “flock,” his “cultured fanatics,” his “cybernetic pack,” the agitator is trying to mobilize the clerics against the threat posed by the common people. He constructs a fable of “brains” versus “calves.” To write its moral, Mr. Owona Nguini – and the clan he promotes – attempt to portray Eto’o as a “cancer.” They want to insult him, vilify him until “death” follows. Through his symbolic murder, perhaps this clan – whose image has been tarnished by poor governance, endemic corruption, political crimes, and Babylonian morals – will finally be rehabilitated. The “illiterate” people must be put back in their place, even if it means stripping them of their sovereignty before the monarch’s will, through the abusive use of “high instructions” falsely elevated to the top of the hierarchy of norms. I leave it to others – constitutionalists, political scientists, psychosociologists, or psychoanalysts – to analyze Mr. Owona Nguini’s statements.
