LANGUAGE, TRUTH, AND THE MISCHARACTERISATION OF CAMEROON’S NEW VP ROLE
By Mark Bareta
Language matters. In moments of political transition or constitutional change, the words used by the media are not just descriptive—they shape public understanding, perception, and ultimately, truth itself. This is why accuracy in reporting is not optional; it is essential.
Recent narratives suggesting that Cameroon has “reintroduced the position of Vice President” are, at best, misleading and, at worst, a distortion of reality. Cameroon has not returned to the Vice Presidency as it once existed. What has been created under President Paul Biya is an entirely different construct—one that serves a distinct political purpose.
To describe the current development as a “reintroduction” implies a return to a known constitutional order. That would only be accurate if Cameroon had reverted to a two-state federation, similar to the arrangement that existed prior to 1972. Clearly, this is not the case.
The Vice President of the former Federal Republic of Cameroon was a product of a federal system, designed—at least in principle—to preserve a balance between the two Cameroons and uphold a form of national unity. It carried symbolic and structural significance within a dual-state framework.
What has now been approved by the Cameroonian Congress bears no resemblance to that historical office. There is no federal structure underpinning it, no constitutional safeguards ensuring regional balance, and no indication that it serves the same integrative purpose. To equate the two is not only inaccurate but misleading to the public.
Instead, what is emerging appears to be a political mechanism aimed at regime continuity. Observers argue that the newly created Vice Presidential role is structured in a way that could ensure the preservation of the current power system long after President Biya’s tenure. This raises important questions about intent, transparency, and the future of governance in Cameroon.
Critics further contend that the process surrounding this development reflects internal political manoeuvring rather than national consensus. Allegations of sidelining key political figures and consolidating influence within a narrow circle have only deepened scepticism about the true purpose of the role.
In this context, it becomes even more important for the media to exercise precision. Words like “reintroduction” carry historical weight and imply continuity where none exists. Such language risks confusing the public and obscuring the fundamental differences between past and present political realities.
Cameroon is at a critical juncture. Citizens deserve clear, factual, and responsible reporting—not narratives that blur distinctions or recycle terms without context.
Let us call things what they are.
Cameroon has not reintroduced the office of Vice President.
What has been created is something entirely different—and it should be examined, reported, and debated as such.
Accuracy is not a luxury. It is a responsibility.
