Minister Atanga Nji’s recently published work, “Understanding the Meaning of My Permanent Struggle for the Respect of Republican Legality,” can be interpreted in several ways: as an affirmation of power conservatism, a display of his significant contributions to maintaining the current regime, or an homage to President Paul Biya’s profound wisdom.

 However, an astute reader will recognize its substantial contribution to political science and conflict resolution through the theory of “imperfect equilibrium” which he elaborates in the book’s postface.

 Since 2016, the crisis in Cameroon’s Northwest and Southwest regions has escalated into an armed conflict, with certain separatist factions advocating for the establishment of an “Ambazonia Republic” through secession. This separatist narrative often highlights a perceived systemic marginalization of Anglophones by the Francophone majority. Atanga Nji vehemently challenges this perspective, asserting that the tangible achievements of the regime in both Anglophone regions, coupled with his own prominent position within the state apparatus and the presence of numerous other Anglophone leaders in key ministerial, public, and private sector roles, empirically refutes these separatist claims.

Atanga Nji’s central argument is built on concrete examples. As an Anglophone who has ascended to the highest echelons of the state, following a long career in the private sector as a banker and finance expert, he, along with other Anglophones in positions of authority, exemplifies that the alleged marginalization is a politically constructed myth. This line of reasoning, which can be termed the successful integration thesis, forms part of a broader symbolic counter-insurgency strategy: the visible presence of Anglophones in top leadership roles and significant public investments in the two Anglophone regions directly undermine the narrative of systemic discrimination.

The postface of the book unexpectedly introduces the author’s development of what he terms the “logic of imperfect equilibrium.” This is presented as a guiding principle for managing conflicts, disputes, and negotiations. This theory aligns with President Paul Biya’s broader reflections on international peace and security, particularly his address at the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, where he stated:

“The pursuit of peace concerns us all. All countries must work towards its advent.”

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

Atanga Nji elevates this presidential insight into a theoretical paradigm. He begins with the observation that “all wars are useless,” in line with universal humanitarian principles and international bodies like the UN. However, he introduces a crucial distinction: that between legitimate self-defense and war for its own sake. According to him, there exists a “legitimate war” against terrorism, which justifies the use of force by a legitimate government.

The theory of imperfect equilibrium critiques the ideal of a perfect compromise. Atanga Nji argues that striving for absolute balance or total distributive justice in negotiations is not only illusory but ultimately counterproductive. He writes:

“To end all these justified or unnecessary conflicts that disturb humanity’s tranquility, negotiations and especially compromises are essential. To do this, one must accept the policy of the middle ground, which is not necessarily just, because there is never a good compromise. Compromise is not necessarily capitulation, because if belligerents viewed compromise as capitulation, armed conflicts would never end.”

The author develops his ideas through four foundational propositions:

First proposition: the middle ground is not always just

“Imperfect equilibrium is an equilibrium that is not always just, but which allows for the resolution of any conflict in the sense of equity and with a concern for appeasement. In every negotiation, it must be remembered that the middle ground is not always just, and the much-sought-after equilibrium as a solution to certain conflicts or grievances is not always balanced.”

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

Second proposition: compromise as reciprocal renunciation

“The meaning of compromise sometimes implies doing violence to oneself by agreeing to lose something very dear to regain peace or to resolve a difficult political, economic, or social equation.”

Here, the author places the theory within a political economy of giving and renunciation. Negotiation is not a bargaining process where each party obtains what it deems just, but rather a process where each “does violence to oneself” to preserve collective order. This sacrificial dimension of compromise aligns Atanga Nji’s thinking more with theories of hierarchical contractualism than with egalitarian contractualism, such as that proposed by Rawls.

Third proposition: imperfection as a condition for peace

“Indeed, equilibrium contains imperfections, and these must be taken into account when facing an impasse in negotiations. As soon as one accepts that there is never a good compromise, and that compromise is not necessarily capitulation but common sense, one will always arrive at the logic of the middle ground to end all these conflicts that disturb humanity’s tranquility.”

This proposition enacts a classic epistemological inversion: far from being a failure, the imperfection of equilibrium becomes its very condition of possibility. The expectation of a perfect compromise leads to deadlock; the acceptance of imperfection leads to resolution.

Fourth proposition: universality of the logic

“In negotiations, one should not take too much, nor give everything. The logic of imperfect equilibrium must now be integrated into international negotiations at all levels of discussion, whatever the subject, so that the world may be more peaceful, less selfish, and less dangerous. […] The logic of imperfect equilibrium can now be perceived as a guide for humanity. It is valid at all levels of life.”

Atanga Nji thus elevates his theory to the status of a universal principle of governance, applicable to international relations as well as ordinary social interactions, offering a significant perspective on African current affairs.

The relevance of this theory to understanding the Anglophone crisis becomes evident when explicitly connecting the author’s two registers of thought. The thesis of Anglophone marginalization, according to Atanga Nji, stems from an unrealistic expectation of perfect equilibrium: numerical equality (the two Anglophone regions represent neither a quarter of Cameroon’s population nor a significant area justifying an equal parity demand), strict parity (it is illusory to demand strict parity solely based on the colonizer’s language), and institutional symmetry between linguistic communities (it would be detrimental to national cohesion to reason in terms of spoken language when neither official language belongs to Cameroon). However, such an equilibrium is not only impossible in a composite society like Cameroon, which boasts four cultural areas, but it is also undesirable, as it would rigidify identities and paralyze political decision-making, thereby compromising the national unity policy consistently pursued by successive Cameroonian governments.

The “imperfect equilibrium” allows for asymmetric but peaceful coexistence: Anglophones may not have strict proportional representation, yet they undeniably hold key positions; they do not benefit from pure federalism, but they actively participate in state leadership. This equity within inequality—to borrow a classic phrase—constitutes, according to the author, the only realistic horizon for Cameroon.

The heuristic power of this theory finely accounts for real political negotiation processes, where actors accept suboptimal solutions to preserve social order. It resonates with the work of rational choice theorists on imperfect “Nash equilibria,” as well as Jon Elster’s analyses of the rationality of renunciation. It also provides a framework for understanding the relative stability of the Cameroonian regime despite structural tensions: President Paul Biya’s managerial expertise precisely lies in his ability to manage imperfect equilibria, providing partial satisfaction without ever completely excluding, a key aspect of African governance.

The theory of “imperfect equilibrium” represents the most original contribution of Paul Atanga Nji’s work. By asserting that “the middle ground is not always just,” that “the much-sought-after equilibrium […] is not always balanced,” and that peace requires “accepting to lose something very dear,” the author proposes a framework for political negotiation that shifts the emphasis from substantive justice to procedural viability.

Paul Atanga Nji’s book stands as an exceptionally rich political document for scholars of African political science. It offers a window into the discourse of Cameroonian power during the era of National Renewal, into the mechanisms of legitimizing a regime in permanent tension with its margins, and into how integrated Anglophone elites navigate their dual community and state affiliations, providing valuable insights into English Africa news and continent news.