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

with pre-colonial titles and history could not survive the democratisation of the chieftaincy structures and institutions by the colonial administration. It became difficult to differentiate a traditional chief from a modern politician (Bierschenk, 1993:217-43). Up till date, it is indeed difficult to distinguish a traditional ruler from a modern politician or elite. Carola Lentz cues up to emphasis that the disagreement over titles among traditional rulers often resulted in feuds, warfare and shifting political alignment. Sometimes, they weakened the powerful chiefdoms and made them to lose control over their peripheral territories. Villages also ceased the opportunity of the conflict situations to declare their independence (Lentz, 1993:176-212). To Lentz, the impact of colonial rule on African traditional stewardship was great. Chieftaincy matters were intricately linked to British local administration. At independence, most African government and later regimes arrogated to themselves the right to have the final say in the recognition of new chiefs. By so doing they were perpetuating the colonial policy of appointing chiefs who had no traditional backing. This appointment syndrome today is breaking down many African kingdoms or states which are bound to cope with the stigma of artificial states created within their states. Bafut had its own bitter pill and the Fon, Abumbi II, has never been in accord with the government for recognising eight second class chiefdoms in his fon dom. To him, that was synonymous to creating states within a state in modern dispensation. The emergence of party politics in later years intensified the conflict and brought in new dynamics in chieftaincy matters. These political parties offered themselves as national political counterparts to opposing factions in local conflicts. Chiefs and would-be chiefs now needed to secure political support by siding with the national power groups. Governments now used the chiefs to enhance their rural constituencies. As for the “earth priests” (the kingmakers responsible for the enthronement of the chiefs) who were basically cut off from the sort of official recognition, it now appeared that the only way open for them to increase their local influence was to ally with various factions of chiefs (Ibid.). It is within this wider political context that many of the puzzling alignments of chiefs in conflict can best be understood in Bafut and many other fon doms, which came under British rule and thereafter. With the advent of multipartism in Cameroon in the 1990s, two prominent political parties existed namely, the Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM) and the Social Democratic Front (SDF). The impact of these two parties on local politics and traditional authority in Bafut was enormous. It suffices to mention here the consequences of political alignments created by these parties on the Bafut rulers and their people. These parties carefully and cynically set up their political agendas and strategies to further balkanise the Bafut people and leaders under the guise of supporters or followers. While each party struggled to make Bafut its bastion, the syndrome of ‘states’ existing within the Bafut fon dom was gradually fortified and consolidated given the political strife that emanated amongst the political elite and traditional rulers, especially at the level of the central palace. Many political elite accused the central palace for either withdrawing support from them or supporting their opponent because they were not from the same chiefdom or origin. Of course the political elite who had impressed on the government to create the second class chiefdoms within Bafut had a bone to contend with during political campaigns and elections in Bafut (Niba, Personal Communication, 2012). We noted that the paramountcy and status of the Bafut Fon also became a source of bitter conflict among the chiefs of the ethnic groups inhabiting the fon dom. The problem has remained unresolved up till date as each chief wants to be recognised as paramount fon , advancing various arguments to back up his claims (Ngwebufor, 2000:3-4). During colonial rule, the powerful position of the Fon of Bafut permitted him to impose his will on the other chiefs in his realm who were not fortunate to have their status recognised by the colonial masters. He was made the paramount chief in the Bafut Native Authority Area (which also included Bambui, Nkwen, Mendankwe, Bambili and the two Banankis). The colonial authorities paid him all the respect, “closed their eyes to his wrong-doing,” and gave him a higher allowance. They increased the Fon’s power without considering the traditional context or implications and this inevitably caused tension among the traditional rulers especially the chiefs of the semi- autonomous chiefdoms in the fon dom. Although this tension has not resulted in any organised armed conflict, it has resulted in violence (Niba, 1981). Traditional politics became more complicated because of the envy and jealousy that surrounded the position of the Fon. The Fon felt threatened in his position and thus adopted various strategies to deal with the situation and consolidate his position. In the course of doing this, more tension arose in present day. However, John Neba Chungong thinks that this tension should have subsided by now but for the fact that independent governments and regimes continuously arrogate to themselves the right to have the final say in chieftaincy matters or the recognition of chiefs. Consequently, government authorities permanently intrude in chieftaincy matters such as succession to the thrones of traditional rulers, especially in the North West Region of Cameroon. The involvement of government authorities in issues considered to be purely traditional affairs to an extent increased tension in areas where succession conflicts occurred. In Bafut, political conflicts among the traditional rulers in the Volume XXIII Issue III Version I 18 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 D © 2023 Global Journals The Concept of ‘States within a State’ Amidst Conflict and Peace Building Ventures in Bafut, Cameroon