A Critical Analysis of Mark Bareta’s Influence and Policies in the Ambazonia Revolution

By James Agbor

Mark Bareta, a prominent activist in the Ambazonia independence movement, has long been a polarising figure. From rallying grassroots support on social media to endorsing controversial policies, his leadership reflects both the strengths and challenges of the struggle for self-determination in Southern Cameroons. This article critically examines his positions and their implications for the movement.

Advocacy for Armed Struggle

Bareta has consistently championed the need for armed resistance, urging Ambazonians to “pick up arms and defend themselves.” His rhetoric emphasises the importance of militarisation as a pathway to independence, often drawing parallels with other historical liberation struggles. While this approach has energised factions within the movement, it has also invited significant critique. Some argue that prioritising violence over diplomacy alienates potential international allies and deepens the humanitarian crisis on the ground.

Critically, this stance underscores a recurring dilemma: can independence be achieved without exacerbating the suffering of those it seeks to liberate? Reports of civilian casualties and displacement highlight the devastating consequences of armed conflict, casting doubt on the sustainability of such tactics.

Push for Unity Amidst Division

Bareta’s efforts to foster unity among Ambazonia factions have been met with mixed success. Notably, his support for the alliance between the Interim Government (IG Sisiku) and the Ambazonia Governing Council (AGovC) signals a recognition of the need for coordinated strategy. However, entrenched rivalries and ideological differences continue to undermine these efforts. Critics within the movement question whether Bareta’s focus on unity is genuinely inclusive or if it primarily serves his faction’s interests, a position he has rejected multiple times as having no faction within the revolution.

Civil Disobedience and “Ghost Towns”

One of Bareta’s hallmark strategies has been the promotion of “ghost towns” and other forms of economic disobedience. These tactics aim to disrupt the Cameroonian government’s control and draw international attention to the Anglophone crisis. However, their impact on local communities is double-edged. While these measures demonstrate resistance, they also impose severe economic hardship on already vulnerable populations, particularly small business owners and daily wage earners.

This approach raises important questions about the ethical balance between symbolic acts of defiance and the tangible costs to civilian life. Could alternative forms of protest achieve similar objectives without compounding local suffering?

Skepticism Toward Mediation Efforts

Bareta’s vocal opposition to the Swiss-led mediation process reflects broader distrust within the movement toward international solutions perceived as insufficiently robust. He has argued that such initiatives risk compromising Ambazonia’s goal of full independence. While this critique highlights legitimate concerns about marginalisation, it also risks isolating the movement from potential diplomatic allies.

Moreover, this position invites scrutiny over Bareta’s broader vision for the movement’s trajectory. Does rejecting mediated dialogue inadvertently prolong the conflict? Or is it a necessary stance to avoid settling for half-measures? These are critical questions for Ambazonian leaders to address as they navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape

Implications for the Revolution

Mark Bareta’s leadership exemplifies both the promise and pitfalls of modern activist movements. His ability to mobilise support and articulate a vision for independence has undeniably advanced the Ambazonian cause. Yet, the divisive nature of his strategies highlights the need for introspection within the movement.

Ultimately, Bareta’s influence underscores a broader tension: balancing the urgency of liberation with the need for sustainable, inclusive, and ethical tactics. As Ambazonia continues its quest for independence, leaders must grapple with these dilemmas to chart a path forward that honours the aspirations of all its people.