Atanga Nji’s theory of imperfect balance: a new lens for conflict resolution in Cameroon

Minister Atanga Nji’s latest work, ‘Understanding the meaning of my permanent fight for respect of republican legality’, can be read as a hymn to power conservatism, a showcase of his contribution to regime stability, and a tribute to President Paul Biya’s endless wisdom, according to political analyst Jean de Dieu Momo—but the author’s name is removed per instructions.

The discerning reader will note his significant contribution to political science and conflict resolution through the theory of ‘imperfect balance’ developed in the book’s postface.

Since 2016, the crisis in the Northwest and Southwest regions has escalated into armed conflict, with separatist groups demanding a separate ‘Republic of Ambazonia’ through secession from Cameroon. Separatist rhetoric relies on a narrative of systemic marginalisation of Anglophones by the Francophone majority. Atanga Nji strongly challenges this view, arguing that tangible regime achievements in the two Anglophone regions, his own presence in the state apparatus, and that of many other Anglophone leaders holding key positions (ministers, directors of strategic public enterprises, and major private sector leaders) constitute an empirical refutation of separatist theses.

Atanga Nji’s central argument is a demonstration by example. As an Anglophone integrated at the highest level of the state, having worked for a long time in the private sector as a banker and finance expert, he embodies—alongside other Anglophones in power and private sector leadership—proof that alleged marginalisation is a politically constructed myth.

This argument, which could be called the ‘successful integration thesis’, is part of a broader strategy of symbolic counter-insurgency: the presence of Anglophones in top positions and significant public investments in the two Anglophone regions disprove the claim of systemic discrimination.

The book’s postface takes the casual reader by surprise with the development of what the author calls the ‘logic of imperfect balance’, presented as a guiding principle for managing conflicts, disputes, and negotiations. This theory extends the presidential reflection on international peace and security, particularly Paul Biya’s speech at the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly:

‘The quest for peace concerns us all. All countries must work for its advent.’

‘Our most precious asset is peace. Without it, we cannot undertake anything durable or effective for the benefit of our youth or our peoples.’

Atanga Nji elevates this presidential intuition to a theoretical paradigm. He starts from the observation that ‘all wars are useless’, in line with the general principle of humanity and international bodies like the UN. However, he introduces an essential nuance: the distinction between legitimate self-defence and war for its own sake. According to him, there is a ‘legitimate war’—the war against terrorism—which justifies the use of force by a legitimate government.

The imperfect balance theory rests on a critique of the ideal of perfect compromise. Atanga Nji argues that the search for absolute balance, for total distributive justice in negotiations, is not only illusory but counterproductive. He writes:

‘To end all these justified or useless conflicts that disturb the tranquility of Humanity, we must negotiate and above all compromise. To do this, we 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 the belligerents saw compromise as capitulation, armed conflicts would never end.’

The author develops his thought in four structuring propositions:

First proposition: the middle ground is not always just
‘The imperfect balance is a balance that is not always just, but allows resolving any conflict in a spirit of equity and appeasement. In every negotiation, one must remember that the middle ground is not always just, and the balance so sought as a solution to some conflicts or grievances is not always balanced.’

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

Second proposition: compromise as mutual renunciation
‘The sense of compromise sometimes means doing violence to oneself by accepting to lose something very dear in order to regain peace or to resolve a difficult political, economic or social equation.’

Here the author situates the theory within a political economy of gift and renunciation. Negotiation is not a bargaining where each party gets what it considers just, but a process where each ‘does violence to itself’ to preserve the collective order. This sacrificial dimension of compromise brings Atanga Nji’s thought closer to theories of hierarchical contractualism rather than egalitarian contractualism à la Rawls.

Third proposition: imperfection as a condition for peace
‘Indeed, balance contains imperfections and one must take them into account when faced with a deadlock 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 the tranquility of Humanity.’

This proposition performs a classic epistemological inversion: far from being a failure, the imperfection of balance makes it possible. Waiting for a perfect compromise is a source of blockage; accepting imperfection is a source of resolution.

Fourth proposition: universality of the logic
‘In negotiations, one should not take too much and not give everything. From now on, the logic of imperfect balance must be integrated into international negotiations at all levels of discussion, whatever the subject, so that the world becomes more peaceful, less selfish and less dangerous. […] The logic of imperfect balance can now be seen as a guide for Humanity. It is valid at all levels of life.’

Atanga Nji thus elevates his theory to a universal principle of governance, applicable to international relations as well as ordinary social interactions.

The relevance of this theory for understanding the Anglophone crisis becomes clear when explicitly linking the two registers of the author’s thought. According to Atanga Nji, the thesis of Anglophone marginalisation stems from an unrealistic expectation of perfect balance: numerical equality (the two Anglophone regions represent neither a quarter of Cameroon’s population nor a significant area justifying demands for equal parity), strict parity (it is illusory to demand strict parity solely on the basis of the coloniser’s language), and institutional symmetry between linguistic communities (it would be dangerous for national cohesion to reason in terms of spoken language when neither of the two official languages originates from Cameroon). Yet such a balance is not only impossible in a composite society like Cameroon, which has four cultural areas, but also undesirable because it would freeze identities and paralyse political decision-making, compromising the policy of national unity so sought by successive governments in Cameroon.

The ‘imperfect balance’ allows for thinking about an asymmetric but peaceful cohabitation: Anglophones do not have strict proportional representation, but they undeniably hold key positions; they do not benefit from pure federalism, but they participate in the leadership of the state. This equity within inequality—to borrow a classic formula—constitutes, according to the author, the only realistic horizon for Cameroon.

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

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

Paul Atanga Nji’s work constitutes a political document of exceptional richness for the researcher in African political science. It offers a window into the discourse of Cameroonian power in the era of National Renewal, into the mechanisms of legitimising a regime in permanent tension with its margins, and into how integrated Anglophone elites negotiate their dual community and state belonging.