Global Journal of Human Social Science, D: History, Archaeology and Anthroplogy, Volume 23 Issue 3

warned against when he examined the concept of traditional authority within the political institutions of the Kom people. Nkwi pointed out that traditional authority is the centre of all relations. First, the authority is built on consent and consensus rather than on coercion. To Nkwi, Bafut, Bali, kom and Nso in the nineteenth century emerged as centralised states with centralised authority. The Fon was at the head of a hierarchical political structure, which permitted him to delegate powers and authority to regional representatives. In this political system, therefore, the king or fon , according to Nkwi, is a sovereign leader with a hierarchical authority. In the nineteenth century, most of these rulers were also ruling over confederacies, which were often a mixture of pyramidal and hierarchical authority (Nkwi, 1987:56). Nkwi’s view is that the groups of people in the Grassflieds’ fon doms did not live in complete isolation. Friendly contacts dominated their history but many of them too had hostile conflicts and contacts with one another. These hostilities could have been wars, boundary problems and various forms of conflict that strained relations among the groups. Hostilities or strained relationships among the traditional rulers themselves became a common feature too (Ibid.). Thus, in a situation where subordinate authority discards history and rise to claim equal rights, privileges power, and position with his superior in recent times, such a community can hardly be peaceful. It is the case with Bafut. In fact, to deal with authority in Bafut today is to deal with a sensitive and precarious situation. Traditional authority is in the blood of the rulers more as a vector of controversy, bitterness and deadlock. It provokes senseless conflicts in a great fon dom that by dint of its status is expected to be dynamic and evolving rapidly in present day. One is quick to conclude that even in the midst of modern education nowadays many traditional authorities have failed to learn from their history and construct better peaceful communities for their people. Little wonder then that Fortes and Evans-Pritchard remarked that in dealing with traditional authorities, one is dealing with law on the one hand, with conflict on the other, and with peace and order where necessary (Forts and Eans-Pritchard, 1967: 27). Within a locally defined community, an authority may commit some acts or adapts some modes of behavior, which may spur up conflict in the society. Traditional leaders who generate tension in the society claim to be great men. Subordinate chiefs play the role of representatives of the people within central authority (hierarchy). But, without cooperation among the people who hold these offices, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for the administration of the society to succeed. The king himself confronts difficulties in obtaining his revenue, assert his judicial and legislative supremacy, or retain his secular and ritual prestige. Sabotage becomes a salient feature of conflict among traditional leaders (Ibid.). The circumstances prevailing in the society at the time thus determine the magnitude of the conflict. In Bafut the traces of colonial administration continue to reign havoc up till date. The bone of contention is on issues emanating from acculturation which the people have been unable to manage several decades after the departure of the colonial master. The relics of colonial administration had remained indelible in the traditional political system of Bafut more as a source of conflict in modern time. Walters Che Fombong lamented on this when he remarked that the Bafut society, which was purely traditional, gradually evolved into the colonial era where foreigners and external influence infiltrated the “traditional society.” Chieftaincy matters for instance, were intricately linked to British local administration. The colonial classification of chiefs into grades (first, second and third class) in the Bamenda Division was not necessary given that it became a source of conflict and disagreements over titles among the traditional rulers of powerful states or fon doms. Till date, the disagreement has not stopped. The word “paramount” used to clearly distinguish the authority of few first class chiefs is still in conflict. While the paramount chiefs were placed on a monthly salary and held in high esteem by the British colonial masters, the second-class and the third-class chiefs were less important and thus ignored. Today, in spite the 1977 chieftaincy decree many paramount or first class chiefs still think that the second and third class chiefs should be permanently ignored and deprived of any privileges. The envy and jealousy aroused among the traditional rulers during colonial rule had seldom disappeared. The secession tendencies among the traditional rulers in Bafut multiplied in recent times (Fombong, 1980:79). The post-colonial government inherited and continued with the system of classifying traditional rulers into grades and this has never resolved the separatist tendencies among the rulers in Bafut. Apart from the classification of chiefs, colonial masters created artificial or warrant chieftaincies. The consequences of this act in Africa and Bafut in particular today are vividly described by Thomas Bierschenk who pointed out that, some chieftaincies in African societies today are not traditional institutions originating from pre- colonial times and extending into colonial era. The colonial authorities created chieftaincies where such had not existed before. As time went on, traditional rulers became involved in modern politics. It became difficult to distinguish chiefs from the modern elite for they did not constitute two distinct social groups. On the one hand, some politicians took the chiefs as potential allies or opponents. The concept of “tradition” and “modernity” was not antithetical to the politicians. Thus, in the face of this confusion, internal conflicts over the social status of chiefs became prominent among traditional rulers. With the advent of colonial rule, chiefs © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 17 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 D The Concept of ‘States within a State’ Amidst Conflict and Peace Building Ventures in Bafut, Cameroon