For weeks, Cameroonians have been left in a state of uncertainty as rumors about President Paul Biya’s health—ranging from illness to death—spread rapidly. Social media and public spaces buzzed with speculation, yet Biya offered no response. Unlike Malawi’s President Lazarus Chakwera, who quickly dispelled similar rumors by directly addressing his people, Biya opted for silence, refusing to acknowledge the growing unease. His failure to communicate left many wondering why he didn’t take the opportunity to reassure his nation.
When Biya finally reappeared on October 21, 2024, after weeks of absence, he did not directly address the rumors or the concerns of the Cameroonian people. Instead, his public appearance seemed calculated to project strength, subtly dismissing any doubts about his capacity to lead. But this reticence to engage with the public raises important questions: why remain silent during such a critical moment, and what does it say about Biya’s leadership and relationship with the people?
Why Did President Biya Stay Silent?
Biya’s decision to remain silent in the face of widespread uncertainty is perplexing. Was he physically unable to speak, or did he consciously choose to avoid communication? Such silence begs the question: does Biya view himself as accountable to the people who elected him? Or is his silence part of a broader strategy to project power, emphasizing control over transparency?
This is not the first time Biya has maintained a distant stance during times of public concern. Throughout his 42-year presidency, he has often refrained from directly addressing the nation, relying instead on official statements and decrees. This leadership style has contributed to his image as a distant figure, engaging with the public only in rare, significant moments.
Ignoring Public Sentiment: A Pattern in Biya’s Leadership
Paul Biya’s long tenure has been characterised by decisions that often disregard public opinion, reinforcing the perception of his authoritarian approach to governance.
Constitutional Changes in 2008:
In one of the most pivotal moments of his presidency, Biya pushed for a constitutional amendment that eliminated term limits, allowing him to remain in power indefinitely. Despite protests and warnings from civil society, Biya pressed forward, disregarding the will of the people. This move ignited unrest, yet Biya responded with further consolidation of power rather than addressing the legitimate concerns of his citizens.
The Anglophone Crisis:
When Anglophone Cameroonians protested for greater autonomy in 2016, Biya’s government responded with military repression instead of dialogue. His silence in the wake of these protests widened the gap, turning a political issue into a protracted conflict characterized by mistrust between the government and the Anglophone regions.
Response to COVID-19:
During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, while leaders around the world were actively communicating with their populations, Biya remained notably absent. Months passed before he addressed the nation, and even then, his message lacked the clarity and reassurance that citizens sought. His delayed response only heightened public anxiety.
In these instances and others, Biya’s leadership has often prioritised consolidating power over engaging with the public. His silence seems to be an assertion of authority, suggesting that addressing public concerns is beneath him.
Is Paul Biya Acting as a Demigod?
Biya’s silence raises a critical question: is it a deliberate tactic engineered by those close to him, or a reflection of his own detachment from the people? Has Biya come to view himself as a near-untouchable figure, above the reproach of the population? Or does his silence indicate a fundamental lack of respect for the citizens who have kept him in power?
Some analysts argue that Biya’s inner circle, a cadre of elites with vested interests, insulates him from reality. This circle may prefer to present him as an omnipotent figure, far removed from the everyday concerns of ordinary Cameroonians. In this bubble, Biya remains shielded from criticism, allowing his silence to be interpreted as strength.
Others believe that Biya himself feels no obligation to engage with the public. After four decades in power, he may see himself as an unchallengeable fixture in Cameroon’s political landscape, no longer accountable to the electorate. The removal of term limits in 2008 only reinforced this perception of his absolute authority.
A Growing Rift: The People vs. Paul Biya
Whatever the reasons for his silence, the growing disconnect between Biya and the Cameroonian people is evident. His refusal to address rumors about his health sends a clear message: the concerns of the population are secondary to his image of strength. This widening gap between the president and the people raises deeper concerns about the nature of leadership in Cameroon.
Shouldn’t a president, especially one who has been in office for more than four decades, feel an obligation to communicate openly during times of uncertainty? By remaining silent, Biya strengthens the perception that he views himself as more of a ruler than a servant of the people. While his actions may project power, they simultaneously undermine the principles of accountability and transparency, which are essential to any functioning democracy.
A Leader for the People or for Himself?
Paul Biya’s silence speaks volumes about his leadership style. The message is clear: Cameroonians’ concerns are not a priority, regardless of whether those around him are influencing him or stem from his own attitude toward governance. While other leaders, like Malawi’s President Chakwera, recognize the importance of communicating openly with their citizens, Biya’s reluctance to do the same raises troubling questions about his respect for the office he holds and the people he claims to serve.