Minister Atanga Nji’s new publication challenges traditional political narratives

Minister Atanga Nji’s latest book, Understanding the meaning of my permanent fight for respect of republican legality, presents what some see as a defense of government conservatism while others view it as a showcase of his contributions to regime stability.

The author’s contribution to political science and conflict resolution shines through his theory of “imperfect balance”, developed in the book’s postscript. Since 2016, the crisis in Cameroon’s Northwest and Southwest regions has escalated into armed conflict, with separatist groups demanding the creation of a “Republic of Ambazonia” through secession from the country. These groups frame their struggle as a response to systemic marginalization of English-speaking populations by the French-speaking majority.

Atanga Nji strongly contests this narrative. He argues that the government’s tangible achievements in the Anglophone regions, his own prominent position within the state apparatus, and the presence of numerous other Anglophone leaders in key roles—including ministers, directors of public enterprises, and private sector executives—serve as empirical evidence refuting separatist claims.

The theory of imperfect balance: a new paradigm for conflict resolution

The minister’s central argument rests on demonstrating through example. As an Anglophone integrated into the highest levels of government—having previously built a career in the private sector as a banker and finance expert—he embodies, alongside other Anglophones in power and private sector leadership, proof that alleged marginalization is a politically constructed myth.

This argumentation, which could be termed the “successful integration thesis,” forms part of a broader symbolic counter-insurgency strategy: the presence of Anglophones in top positions and significant public investments in the Anglophone regions directly contradict claims of systemic discrimination.

Four pillars of the imperfect balance theory

The postscript introduces the reader to Atanga Nji’s “logic of imperfect balance,” presented as a guiding principle for conflict management, dispute resolution, and negotiations. This theory extends presidential reflections on international peace and security, particularly President Paul Biya’s address to the 72nd United Nations General Assembly:

“The quest for peace concerns us all. All countries must work toward its achievement.”

“Our most precious asset is peace. Without it, we cannot undertake anything lasting or effective for the benefit of our youth and our people.”

Atanga Nji elevates this presidential insight to the level of theoretical paradigm. He begins with the observation that “all wars are unnecessary,” aligning with universal human principles and international bodies like the UN. However, he introduces a crucial distinction between legitimate defense and war for war’s sake. There exists, in his view, a “legitimate war”—that against terrorism—which justifies state use of force.

The theory of imperfect balance challenges the ideal of perfect compromise. Atanga Nji argues that seeking absolute balance, total distributive justice in negotiations, is not only unrealistic but counterproductive. He writes:

“To end all justified or unjustified conflicts that disturb humanity’s tranquility, we must engage in negotiations and especially compromises. This requires embracing the politics of the middle ground, which isn’t necessarily just because perfect compromise doesn’t exist. Compromise isn’t necessarily surrender, for if belligerents viewed compromise as surrender, armed conflicts would never end.”

The author develops his theory through four foundational propositions:

First proposition: The middle ground isn’t always just

“Imperfect balance is a balance that isn’t always just, but which resolves conflicts toward equity and with a focus on appeasement. In every negotiation, remember that the middle ground isn’t always just, and the balance so often sought as a solution to conflicts or grievances isn’t always balanced.”

This proposition forms the theory’s core. It asserts that procedural equity (achieving a settlement) takes precedence over substantive justice (the settlement’s conformity to an ideal of justice). The “imperfect balance” is therefore a functional rather than normative equilibrium.

Second proposition: Compromise as mutual renunciation

“The meaning of compromise sometimes requires self-denial by accepting loss of something precious to restore peace or resolve a difficult political, economic, or social equation.”

Here, the theory enters the realm of political economy of sacrifice and renunciation. Negotiation isn’t bargaining where each party receives what they deem just; rather, it’s a process where each party “does violence to itself” to preserve the collective order. This sacrificial dimension of compromise aligns Atanga Nji’s thought more closely with hierarchical contractualism than Rawlsian egalitarian contractualism.

Third proposition: Imperfection as the condition for peace

“Balance contains imperfections that must be acknowledged when negotiations reach impasse. Once we accept that perfect compromise doesn’t exist, and that compromise isn’t necessarily surrender but common sense, we’ll always arrive at the middle ground to end conflicts disturbing humanity’s tranquility.”

This proposition performs a classic epistemological inversion: far from being a failure, the imperfection of balance becomes its enabling condition. The expectation of perfect compromise creates blockages; accepting imperfection creates solutions.

Fourth proposition: Universal applicability of the logic

“In negotiations, one shouldn’t take too much or give everything. We must now integrate the logic of imperfect balance into international negotiations at all levels and on any subject to make the world more peaceful, less selfish, and less dangerous. […] The logic of imperfect balance can now be seen as humanity’s guiding principle. It applies at all levels of life.”

Atanga Nji elevates his theory to the status of universal governance principle, applicable to international relations as to everyday social interactions.

Relevance to the Anglophone crisis

The theory’s relevance to understanding Cameroon’s Anglophone crisis becomes clear when connecting both registers of the author’s thought. Atanga Nji views the Anglophone marginalization thesis as an unrealistic expectation of perfect balance: numerical equality (the two Anglophone regions don’t represent a quarter of Cameroon’s population or sufficient area to justify equal parity), strict parity (it’s illusory to demand strict parity based solely on colonial language), or institutional symmetry between linguistic communities (reasoning based on spoken language would be dangerous for national cohesion when neither official language is indigenous to Cameroon). Such balance isn’t just impossible in Cameroon’s composite society with four cultural areas—it’s undesirable, as it would freeze identities and paralyze political decision-making, undermining the national unity policy pursued by successive governments.

The “imperfect balance” allows thinking of an asymmetric but peaceful cohabitation: Anglophones don’t have strict proportional representation but hold key positions; they don’t enjoy pure federalism but participate in state leadership. This equity within inequality—using a classic formulation—represents, according to the author, Cameroon’s only realistic horizon.

The theory’s heuristic strength finely accounts for real political negotiation processes where actors accept suboptimal solutions to preserve social order. It aligns with rational choice theorists’ work on “imperfect Nash equilibria” and Jon Elster’s analyses on the rationality of renunciation. It also provides a framework for understanding Cameroon’s relative stability despite structural tensions: President Paul Biya’s managerial expertise precisely lies in his ability to manage imperfect balances, to partially satisfy without ever fully excluding.

The theory of “imperfect balance” represents Atanga Nji’s most original contribution. By asserting that “the middle ground isn’t always just”, that “the balance so often sought […] isn’t always balanced”, and that “peace requires accepting loss of something precious”, the author proposes a framework for political negotiation that shifts emphasis from substantive justice to procedural viability.

Atanga Nji’s work stands as an exceptional political document for African political science researchers. It offers a window into Cameroonian power discourse during the National Renewal era, into the mechanisms legitimizing a regime perpetually in tension with its margins, and into how integrated Anglophone elites negotiate their dual community and state affiliations.