Community dialogue: Prof Dze-Ngwa replies Elie Smith.

My original article was not intended to dismiss Community Dialogue, discredit the efforts of religious and traditional leaders, or deny the contributions of previous peace initiatives. Rather, I sought to emphasise a fundamental principle of conflict resolution: The nature, causes and level of a conflict must determine the nature, mandate and level of dialogue required to address it. 

My concern is not with dialogue itself. It is with mistaking dialogue that manages the consequences of a national political conflict for a process capable of resolving its underlying causes. My position is informed by historical research and practical peacebuilding experience across Cameroon, including engagement with communities affected by the Boko Haram insurgency.

Through the Heritage Higher Institute of Peace and Development Studies (HEHIPEDS) and the Institute of Peace Studies and Humanitarian Action (IPSHA), I have worked with researchers and Peace Studies students to investigate conflict dynamics and promote community engagement across Cameroon.

These experiences have strengthened my conviction that sustainable peace requires inclusive, context-specific and coordinated interventions at both community and national levels. For me, peacebuilding is not merely an academic discipline or a political slogan. It is a practical responsibility to people whose lives, livelihoods, education and futures have been devastated by conflict. 

Where Elie Smith and I agree: 

Community dialogue is indispensable 

I agree with Elie that communities affected by violence cannot afford to wait indefinitely for politicians to resolve every national disagreement before beginning to rebuild their lives. Children need to return to school. Displaced families need opportunities to return home safely and voluntarily. Farmers need to cultivate their land, traders need access to markets, and communities need to recover their livelihoods.

Community peacebuilding can restore trust, reconcile divided communities, resolve local disputes, improve access to essential services and strengthen social cohesion. These are urgent priorities that cannot be postponed until a comprehensive political settlement is reached.

Community dialogue must complement national political dialogue 

Elie and I agree that Community Dialogue should complement, rather than replace, national political engagement.

My position has consistently advocated a two-track approach: community-level peacebuilding alongside a credible national political process capable of addressing the historical, constitutional, institutional and governance questions underlying the Anglophone conflict. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary and should reinforce each other.

Cameroon’s national approach did not end in 2019

I acknowledge Elie’s clarification that Cameroon’s national approach continued beyond the Major National Dialogue of 2019. I have never argued that the dialogue and subsequent initiatives achieved nothing, nor have I suggested that all national engagement ceased after 2019. However, recognizing that a process exists is not the same as concluding that it has adequately addressed the conflict.  

The essential questions remain: Have the underlying grievances been sufficiently addressed?; Have affected populations regained confidence in the process?; Which commitments have been implemented, and which remain outstanding?; What further steps are required to achieve a sustainable political settlement? These are questions of effectiveness, not attempts to dismiss previous efforts.

Discreet engagement can contribute to peace 

I also welcome Elie’s acknowledgement that discreet contacts have taken place with diaspora representatives and individuals associated with the armed conflict. Peace negotiations do not always begin in public. Confidential consultations can create opportunities for trust-building and exploratory engagement.

Nevertheless, such contacts should contribute to a credible pathway towards meaningful negotiations, concrete commitments and measurable progress. Confidentiality may protect a peace process, but it must not become a permanent substitute for progress. 

Where, then, do our differences lie?

Our differences are narrower than they might initially appear. They concern the adequacy of existing approaches, the relationship between dialogue and political settlement, and the leadership required to translate peace initiatives into sustainable results.

The existence of a process versus its effectiveness 

My concern is not whether Cameroon has organised dialogue initiatives or established mechanisms to follow up on their recommendations. My concern is whether these initiatives have sufficiently addressed the fundamental political disagreements sustaining the Anglophone conflict.

Nearly a decade into the crisis, continuing violence, displacement, educational disruption and humanitarian suffering make it necessary to assess existing initiatives honestly.

We must distinguish between maintaining a process and resolving the problem that the process is intended to address.

The critical questions are: Which grievances have been addressed?; Which commitments remain outstanding?; Which political questions have not been adequately discussed? What confidence-building measures have produced tangible results? What practical improvements have affected the lives of ordinary people? These questions should guide our assessment of progress and inform the way forward.

Community dialogue must not be dismissed or expected to do everything 

Community Dialogue can accomplish a great deal, but its mandate must be clearly understood. It can facilitate reconciliation, restore relationships, resolve local disputes, promote social cohesion and identify grievances requiring attention from regional or national authorities.

However, community meetings cannot independently renegotiate the constitutional relationship between the former British Southern Cameroons and French Cameroun.

Nor can local reconciliation alone determine the distribution of national political authority or resolve contested constitutional arrangements and demands for institutional and linguistic equality. Such questions require a credible political process involving stakeholders with the legitimacy and authority to negotiate national solutions. 

My position is therefore not that Community Dialogue is unimportant because it cannot resolve every dimension of the conflict.

It is that we must be honest about what community initiatives can achieve, what they cannot achieve independently, and how their outcomes should connect to the wider political process. We must avoid two mistakes:

First, expecting community meetings to resolve a national political crisis on their own. Second, postponing urgent community-level peacebuilding until a comprehensive political settlement is reached.

From theory to the field: What our people are experiencing 

This is where my practical experience becomes particularly relevant. My engagement in peacebuilding across Cameroon has taught me that the true measure of a peace initiative is not simply the number of meetings held, resolutions adopted or dignitaries in attendance. It is the difference the initiative makes in people’s lives.

Recently, my IPSHA students and I returned from the field after engaging with internally displaced persons affected by conflict. What we encountered was deeply troubling. We met displaced persons experiencing such extreme financial hardship that some could not afford even the 100 FCFA needed to send their children to school, where schooling was available.

Some displaced people were living in precarious conditions in urban centres, struggling to meet their most basic needs.

Meanwhile, many villages in the North-West and South-West regions continue to experience serious educational disruption, with some lacking functional schools.

These are not merely statistics in a research report. They represent children whose education is being interrupted, parents struggling to provide for their families, and communities whose social and economic foundations have been severely weakened.

For me, this is where peacebuilding must begin: by listening to affected people, understanding their lived realities and translating those realities into practical interventions.

When a parent cannot afford a small amount of money to send a child to school, we must ask what meaningful peacebuilding means to that family. When a village has no functional school, we must ask what concrete measures are being taken to restore education. When displaced families cannot return home safely or rebuild their livelihoods, we must ask whether our interventions are adequately addressing their immediate needs.

These questions do not replace the need for national political dialogue. They demonstrate why community recovery must proceed alongside it. Our children must not become permanent casualties of political disagreements that adults have failed to resolve. 

Restoring education requires more than declarations. It demands security, community confidence, cooperation among relevant stakeholders, adequate resources and practical arrangements to protect children, teachers and other civilians.

Our field experience reinforces the need to connect immediate humanitarian and community priorities with a broader strategy for sustainable peace.

From dialogue to action: The test is what changes on the ground 

On this point, I find considerable common ground with Elie. His emphasis on measurable commitments, assigned responsibilities, timelines and indicators of progress is commendable. For years, I have maintained that peacebuilding must move beyond declarations and expressions of goodwill towards practical, intentional and measurable action.

We must ask: Can children attend school safely and consistently? Are displaced families receiving the support they need, and can they return home voluntarily under conditions of safety and dignity? Can farmers cultivate their land without unacceptable risks? Can traders and transport operators resume their activities? Are local disputes being resolved without violence? Are victims receiving appropriate assistance? Are communities experiencing greater security, trust and confidence?

These are essential indicators of peacebuilding progress 

At the same time, community recovery cannot be sustained by local initiatives alone when wider political and security conditions remain unresolved.

The challenge is to connect immediate improvements in people's lives to a credible process for addressing the deeper causes of the conflict.

The role of experienced, people-centred peacebuilding practitioners 

Another concern arising from my experience is the need to strengthen the role of qualified peacebuilding practitioners in designing and implementing peace initiatives.

Why are experienced peacebuilding practitioners, conflict transformation specialists, independent researchers, humanitarian professionals and community-based mediators not more consistently involved at the centre of peace process design and implementation?

Why should sensitive peace initiatives be dominated by highly partisan political actors when their success also depends on professional expertise, impartial facilitation, community trust and an understanding of conflict dynamics?

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that politicians should be excluded from peacebuilding. Political leaders and state authorities are indispensable because many of the decisions required for a settlement are inherently political.

My concern is that peacebuilding should not become subordinate to partisan calculations at the expense of the people it is intended to serve. Political leaders must provide the authority and political will necessary to negotiate and implement a settlement.

Experienced practitioners should contribute their expertise in conflict analysis, stakeholder identification, dialogue facilitation, confidence-building, implementation monitoring and the identification of emerging risks.

Their involvement can help ensure that peace initiatives are inclusive, evidence-based, professionally informed and responsive to affected populations.

Peacebuilding must be people-centred, professionally informed & politically enabled – not politically captured. The objective is not to exclude politics from peacebuilding. It is to ensure that political leadership serves the search for peace rather than turning peace initiatives into instruments of partisan competition.

Lessons from peacebuilding across Cameroon 

My perspective is informed not only by historical research into the Anglophone Problem but also by practical engagement in conflict-affected communities across Cameroon, including areas affected by Boko Haram-related violence.

These contexts are different, and the Anglophone conflict should not be equated with the Boko Haram insurgency. Nevertheless, experience across these settings reinforces an important lesson: sustainable peace requires approaches adapted to the specific causes, actors and circumstances of each conflict.

In communities affected by violent extremism, local engagement can help rebuild trust, address community grievances, support recovery, facilitate reintegration where appropriate and strengthen relationships between communities and institutions.

However, community initiatives cannot independently resolve every national security, governance or political problem contributing to a conflict. The same principle applies to the Anglophone crisis.

Local peacebuilding is indispensable, but its sustainability depends partly on whether wider political, security and institutional conditions support its achievements.

Our experience also underscores the importance of treating affected populations as active participants in peacebuilding, not merely as beneficiaries invited to endorse decisions made elsewhere.

Women, young people, displaced persons, victims, teachers, traditional rulers, religious leaders, civil society organisations and other affected groups must have meaningful opportunities to influence priorities, decisions and implementation.

Their participation must go beyond attendance lists, photographs and public endorsements. They must have a genuine voice in shaping the process and assessing its outcomes.

The need for a credible national political process 

Elie and I agree that community peacebuilding and national political engagement should advance together. The remaining challenge is to ensure that the national political process is sufficiently credible, inclusive and authoritative to address outstanding questions.

Such a process should provide space for serious consideration of historical grievances, constitutional arrangements, political representation, bilingualism, institutional equality, decentralisation, regional autonomy, federalism and other proposals advanced by relevant stakeholders.

It should also address civilian protection, detainees, missing persons, displacement, reconstruction, accountability and appropriate mechanisms for disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration.

The objective is not to predetermine a particular constitutional outcome or assume that all stakeholders share the same political aspirations.

Cameroonians hold different views about the future of the state. A credible process must allow these differences to be discussed peacefully and seriously.

No single organisation, political party or individual should automatically be assumed to speak for every Anglophone or every conflict-affected community.

Meaningful representation requires consultation, legitimacy and genuine opportunities for affected populations to influence the process.

The government has a particular responsibility to use its constitutional authority to create conditions for credible engagement. Other relevant political stakeholders, including those exercising influence over armed actors, also have responsibilities to consider peaceful alternatives and protect civilians. Ultimately, the objective must be to move beyond managing the consequences of the conflict towards a sustainable political settlement. 

Patience must not become an excuse for inaction 

I appreciate Elie's reminder that peace processes can be long, difficult and nonlinear. Experiences from Northern Ireland and other conflict-affected societies demonstrate that political settlements may require persistence, compromise and difficult negotiations. However, patience must not become an excuse for indefinite delay.

For communities that have endured years of violence, displacement, interrupted education and economic hardship, time is not an abstract consideration. Every additional year has consequences for children's education, family livelihoods, community relationships and prospects for recovery.

We must therefore combine patience in negotiation with urgency in action. We must be patient enough to listen, negotiate and recognise the legitimate concerns of others. At the same time, we must act urgently to protect civilians, restore education, support displaced populations, facilitate humanitarian assistance and implement credible confidence-building measures.

The fact that a political settlement may take time does not mean that practical improvements must wait. Equally, the urgency of community recovery must not be used to avoid difficult political questions.

A two-track approach: Our shared responsibility 

I therefore reiterate the two-track approach advanced in my original article.

Track-One: Community-level peacebuilding 

Community initiatives should be strengthened through: Inclusive dialogue and local mediation; Reconciliation and trauma healing; Education recovery and protection of children; Humanitarian assistance and livelihood restoration; Support for displaced populations; Safe, voluntary and sustainable returns wherever conditions permit.

These initiatives need clear responsibilities, adequate resources, realistic timelines and measurable indicators of progress. They should also establish credible channels through which grievances that cannot be resolved locally can be referred to appropriate regional and national authorities.

Track-Two: National political dialogue 

Alongside community initiatives, Cameroon needs a credible national political process capable of addressing the historical, constitutional, institutional and governance questions underlying the Anglophone conflict.

This process should build on lessons from the Major National Dialogue and subsequent initiatives without assuming that previous mechanisms have eliminated the need to address outstanding disagreements.

It must be sufficiently inclusive to accommodate diverse political positions, sufficiently credible to generate public confidence, and sufficiently authoritative to translate negotiated outcomes into action. Most importantly, the two tracks must be connected. 

Community dialogue must not be isolated from national decision-making, while national negotiations must remain attentive to the needs, experiences and priorities of affected communities.

Conclusion: We agree on the objective; let us strengthen the means 

Elie Smith and I share a fundamental objective: a peaceful Cameroon in which children can attend school, families can rebuild their lives, communities can recover from violence and citizens can pursue their political aspirations without fear.

We agree that Community Dialogue is important. We agree that the national approach did not end with the Major National Dialogue. We recognise that discreet engagement can contribute to progress, that previous initiatives must be assessed honestly, and that dialogue must produce practical results.

Our differences lie principally in the emphasis we place on assessing the adequacy of existing processes, connecting community peacebuilding to a credible national political settlement, and strengthening the role of experienced, people-centred peacebuilding practitioners.

I do not dismiss the achievements of the Major National Dialogue or subsequent efforts to implement its recommendations. I insist that their achievements and limitations must be assessed against the continuing realities of the conflict.

Nor do I oppose Community Dialogue. I support it as an essential component of a broader peace process that addresses immediate community needs while contributing to the resolution of deeper political disagreements.

Above all, I believe that organising dialogue should not, in itself, be treated as sufficient evidence of progress. Peacebuilding must be judged by whether it reduces violence, restores trust, protects civilians, helps children return to school, supports displaced families, rebuilds livelihoods and creates credible pathways towards a sustainable political settlement.

We do not need to choose between community peacebuilding and national political dialogue. We need both – led by experience, guided by integrity, enabled by political will and measured by their impact on peace’s lives. 

The people of the North-West and South-West regions have suffered enough. They deserve a peace process that is not merely visible, but effective; not merely politically convenient, but genuinely people-centred; and not satisfied with managing the consequences of conflict, but determined to address its underlying causes. That is the spirit in which I welcome Elie Smith’s contribution.

By Prof Willibroad Dze-Ngwa: Professor Willibroad Dze-Ngwa, PhD, is Professor of Political History and International Relations, specialising in Peace and Conflict Studies, at the University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon, and Founding President of the Heritage Higher Institute of Peace and Development Studies (HEHIPEDS).

A pioneer in the historical study of Cameroon’s Anglophone Problem, his research and professional work focus on peacebuilding, conflict transformation, democratic governance, national integration, humanitarian action, reconciliation, peace education, human rights, violent extremism, and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR).

He is a Senior Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence alumnus and has served as a Senior Scholar on DDR with the Global Center on Cooperative Security. His work connects historical understanding with practical, inclusive and sustainable approaches to peace and development in Cameroon and across Africa.

This article was first published in The Guardian Post Edition No:3948 of Friday October 23, 2026