Reconciling governance and justice: the ‘imperfect balance’ paradigm

The newly released work by Cameroon’s Minister Atanga Nji, titled ‘Understanding the meaning of my relentless fight for republican legality’, presents a multifaceted analysis of political engagement while introducing a groundbreaking theoretical contribution to conflict resolution through his concept of the ‘imperfect balance.’

While some may interpret the book as a defense of the status quo or a tribute to the strategic vision of President Paul Biya, it simultaneously offers a profound contribution to political science and peacebuilding. The author’s ‘imperfect balance’ theory challenges conventional negotiation paradigms and proposes a pragmatic alternative to resolving deep-seated conflicts, particularly in Cameroon’s Anglophone regions.

Reframing the Anglophone crisis through empirical evidence

Since 2016, Cameroon’s Northwest and Southwest regions have been embroiled in a violent separatist conflict, with armed groups demanding the creation of an independent ‘Republic of Ambazonia.’ Proponents of secession argue that Anglophones face systemic marginalization by the Francophone majority. Atanga Nji dismantles this narrative by highlighting tangible state investments in these regions and the prominent presence of Anglophones in key government and private sector positions, including his own leadership roles.

The minister’s argument rests on empirical evidence: as an Anglophone who has risen to the highest echelons of state power after a career in finance, he embodies the refutation of marginalization claims. This ‘successful integration thesis’ serves as the cornerstone of a broader symbolic counter-insurgency strategy, demonstrating that public investments and high-level appointments challenge the notion of systemic discrimination.

From presidential rhetoric to theoretical innovation

Atanga Nji’s ‘imperfect balance’ theory emerges as a direct evolution of the president’s vision on peace and international security, particularly inspired by Paul Biya’s address to the 72nd United Nations General Assembly: ‘Peace is our most precious asset. Without it, we cannot achieve anything lasting or effective for our youth and our people.’

The minister elevates this principle into a comprehensive theoretical framework. He begins with a fundamental truth: ‘All wars are unnecessary.’ Yet he introduces a critical distinction between legitimate self-defense and aggressive warfare, arguing that legitimate governments have the right—and sometimes the duty—to use force against terrorism.

At the heart of the ‘imperfect balance’ theory lies a rejection of the ideal of perfect compromise. The author contends that pursuing absolute balance or distributive justice in negotiations is not only unattainable but counterproductive. He writes: ‘To end all justified or unjustified conflicts disrupting humanity’s tranquility, we must embrace negotiation and compromise. This requires accepting the politics of the golden mean—not because it is just, but because there is no such thing as a perfect compromise. Compromise is not synonymous with surrender; if belligerents equated compromise with surrender, armed conflicts would never cease.’

The four pillars of a transformative theory

The minister articulates his theory through four foundational propositions:

1. Justice is not always just: ‘The imperfect balance is an equilibrium that may not always be fair, but it resolves conflicts with equity and a desire for appeasement. In every negotiation, remember that the golden mean is not always just, and the balance sought as a solution to conflicts is not always balanced.’ This proposition shifts focus from substantive justice to procedural viability—the fairness of the process over the perfection of the outcome.
2. The economics of sacrifice: ‘Compromise sometimes demands inflicting violence upon oneself by accepting losses to restore peace or resolve political, economic, or social equations.’ Here, the theory aligns with hierarchical contractualism, emphasizing reciprocal renunciation rather than equal bargaining power.
3. Embracing imperfection: ‘Balance contains imperfections, and we must acknowledge them when negotiations reach deadlock. Once we accept that no perfect compromise exists and that compromise is not surrender but common sense, we can always arrive at the golden mean to end conflicts that disturb humanity’s peace.’ This epistemological inversion reveals imperfection as the very condition for resolution.
4. A universal principle: ‘In negotiations, one must neither take too much nor give everything. The logic of the imperfect balance must be integrated into international negotiations at all levels and across all topics to create a more peaceful, less selfish, and less dangerous world. This logic can guide humanity at every level of life.’

Cameroon’s asymmetric cohabitation as a model

The theory’s relevance becomes evident when applied to the Anglophone crisis. Atanga Nji argues that demands for perfect balance—numerical parity, strict linguistic representation, or institutional symmetry—are not only unrealistic but undesirable. In a nation comprising four cultural spheres, such an equilibrium would freeze identities and paralyze decision-making. Instead, the ‘imperfect balance’ offers a model of asymmetric yet peaceful cohabitation: Anglophones may not hold proportional representation, but they occupy influential positions; they may not enjoy federal autonomy, but they participate in state leadership.

This equity within inequality represents the only realistic horizon for Cameroon, according to the minister. The theory aligns with rational choice theorists’ work on ‘imperfect Nash equilibria’ and Jon Elster’s analyses of rational renunciation, while providing a lens to understand the Cameroonian regime’s stability amid structural tensions. President Paul Biya’s managerial expertise, in Atanga Nji’s view, lies precisely in his ability to manage imperfect balances—satisfying partially without ever fully excluding.

The ‘imperfect balance’ is not merely a theoretical construct; it is a practical framework for understanding how political negotiations function in the real world. By prioritizing process over outcome, it offers a path to resolution in conflicts where perfect justice is unattainable. Atanga Nji’s contribution stands as a landmark in African political thought, offering both a critique of idealized governance models and a pragmatic blueprint for sustainable peace.

The book serves as a vital document for scholars of African political science, revealing the discourse of Cameroon’s power elite during the National Renaissance era. It illuminates the mechanisms by which the regime legitimizes itself amid persistent tensions and how Anglophone elites navigate their dual allegiance to community and state.