In his latest work, “Understanding the meaning of my permanent fight for respect of republican legality,” Minister Atanga Nji offers what can be read as a hymn to power conservatism, a showcase of his contributions to regime stability, and a tribute to President Paul Biya’s wisdom, writes Jean de Dieu Momo.
Yet the discerning reader will note his important contribution to political science and conflict resolution through the “imperfect balance” theory developed in the book’s postface.
Since 2016, the crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions has escalated into armed conflict, with separatist groups demanding the creation of an “Ambazonia Republic” through secession from Cameroon. Separatist rhetoric relies on a narrative of systemic marginalisation of Anglophones by the Francophone majority. Atanga Nji radically challenges this reading, arguing that tangible achievements of the regime in both Anglophone regions, his own presence within the state apparatus, and that of many other Anglophone leaders in positions of responsibility—ministers, directors general of strategic public enterprises, and key private sector figures—constitute an empirical refutation of separatist theses.
Atanga Nji’s central argument rests on demonstration by example. As an Anglophone integrated at the summit of the state, after a long career in the private sector as a banker and finance expert, he embodies, along with other Anglophones in power and private sector leadership, proof that alleged marginalisation is a politically constructed myth.
This argument, which could be called the thesis of successful integration, fits into a broader strategy of symbolic counter-insurgency: the presence of Anglophones at the highest levels of responsibility and significant public investment in the two Anglophone regions refute the claim of systemic discrimination.
The postface takes the reader by surprise, developing 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, particularly Paul Biya’s address to the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly:
“The quest for peace concerns us all. Every country 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 and 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 exists 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 end all these justified or useless conflicts that disturb humanity’s tranquility, negotiations and especially compromises must be made. To do this, we 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, for if belligerents take compromise for 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 equity and for the sake of appeasement. In every negotiation, one must remember that the golden mean is not always just, and the equilibrium so sought as a solution to certain conflicts or grievances is not always balanced.”
This proposition forms the heart 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 thus a functional rather than normative equilibrium.
Second proposition: Compromise as mutual renunciation
“The sense of compromise sometimes involves doing violence to oneself by accepting to lose something very dear 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 bargain where each party gets what it deems fair, but a process where each “does violence to itself” 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 these must be taken into account when faced with an impasse in negotiations. Once we accept that there is never a good compromise, and that compromise is not necessarily capitulation but common sense, we will always arrive at the logic of the golden mean to end all these conflicts that disturb humanity’s tranquility.”
This proposition effects a classic epistemological inversion: far from being a failure, the imperfection of balance makes it possible. Waiting for a perfect compromise causes deadlock; accepting imperfection leads to resolution.
Fourth proposition: Universality of the logic
“In negotiations, one must not take too much nor give everything. The logic of imperfect balance must now 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 henceforth 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 interactions.
The relevance of this theory for understanding the Anglophone crisis becomes clear when linking the two registers of the author’s thought. According to Atanga Nji, the thesis of Anglophone marginalisation stems from an unrealistic expectation of perfect balance: numerical equality—the two Anglophone regions represent neither a quarter of Cameroon’s population nor a significant area justifying a demand for equal parity—strict parity—it is illusory to demand strict parity solely on the basis of the coloniser’s language—and institutional symmetry between linguistic communities—thinking in terms of spoken language would be dangerous for national cohesion when neither official language belongs to Cameroon. Such a balance is not only impossible in a composite society like Cameroon, with 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 thinking of 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 state leadership. 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 in a nuanced way for real political negotiation processes, 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: President Paul Biya’s managerial expertise lies precisely in his ability to manage imperfect balances, to satisfy partially without ever totally excluding.
The theory of “imperfect balance” represents the most original contribution of Paul Atanga Nji’s work. By asserting that “the golden mean is not always just,” that “the equilibrium 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 integrated Anglophone elites negotiate their dual community and state affiliation.
