Alternation and Democracy: A Necessity against the Stagnation of Power in Cameroon

Introduction

The thesis advanced by the Cameroonian philosopher Nkolo Foe—that Cameroon does not need political alternation but a political alternative—raises profound questions. Although appealing in its implicit rejection of a mere rotation of elites without fundamental change, this position minimises an essential pillar of democracy: alternation. A democracy without political alternation ceases to be a democracy and shifts into what might be called a ‘secular theocracy’ or a ‘frozen regime’.

Political alternation: a foundation of democracy

Democracy rests on limiting power in time. In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu states that ‘every man invested with power is apt to abuse it’ (Book XI, Chapter 4). Political alternation, at the heart of the democratic system, prevents such abuse by limiting how long power may be exercised.

Moreover, the absence of alternation undermines the consent of the governed, which is the very basis of democracy. In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke insists on the need for this consent to be explicitly renewed. Without free and credible elections allowing regular alternation, power perpetuates itself and inevitably becomes tyrannical.

Democracy without alternation: a contradiction in terms

Claude Lefort, a theorist of democracy, emphasises that democracy rests on the contingency of power: an empty place temporarily occupied by replaceable representatives. The absence of alternation denies this contingency and turns power into exclusive property.

This dynamic generates several forms of determinism:

— Personal: power is monopolised by a single person regarded as irreplaceable, encouraging a personality cult.

— Biological: power is justified by biological criteria such as age or gender, establishing an artificial hierarchy.

— Ethnic or racial: power becomes the preserve of a specific group, undermining the foundations of democratic equality.

This rigidity turns a democracy into a ‘secular theocracy’: a system in which power is sanctified and escapes all rational or democratic challenge. Unlike a religious theocracy, this sanctification rests on secular but equally dogmatic justifications, such as the alleged destiny of an individual or group to govern indefinitely.

As Lefort shows, a genuine democracy recognises the uncertainty inherent in power, making it accessible, renewable and open to contest. Conversely, the absence of alternation freezes power and removes the political openness essential to every dynamic society.

Alternation as a condition of democratic freedom

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville establishes that political freedom rests on the constant renewal of elites. This renewal guarantees diverse representation and prevents institutions from becoming sclerotic.

According to Tocqueville, ‘There is no freedom without the renewal of elites.’ A democracy deprived of alternation becomes an illusion: it locks access to power, sterilises public debate and restricts the emergence of new perspectives.

Alternation and alternative: complementary dynamics

Although alternation does not always produce genuine change, as Hannah Arendt reminds us in Between Past and Future, it is a prerequisite for it. In Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen argues that democracy consists in offering real choices. The absence of alternation reduces those choices and condemns society to political and social stagnation.

Rethinking Cameroon’s democratic future

Nkolo Foe’s argument that Cameroon should favour a political alternative rather than alternation implies that one might replace the other. Yet analysis shows that the two notions are inseparable.

Far from being a mere institutional formality, alternation is the cornerstone of a living democracy. It guarantees the vitality of public debate, preserves citizens’ freedom and opens the way to genuine political alternatives. Without it, democracy becomes an empty shell, unable to respond to citizens’ aspirations.

Rethinking Cameroon’s democratic future therefore requires reconciling these two dynamics within a common vision of renewal and transformation. For, as Amartya Sen reminds us, ‘democracy is above all the capacity to make choices’.