MECA-USA: the painful path to unity.
The following was written for a restricted audience: Manyu people. It may also apply to cultural groups that have suffered crises that led to break ups.
You will read this once in a while on Manyunet and other fora, hear it almost at every gathering: “die-house”, fundraising, birthday... : “let us unite”. These calls, as laudable as they may sound have sometimes missed (or I have failed to see) the fundamental: it is a … process. Some sound divinely inspired, others are seemingly pedantic, some are condescending while others are downright simple honest and practical. Regardless of its type, calls for reconciliation have fallen on deaf ears, dumb mouths and stiff legs. Why? The answer is within each individual. I have heard people on both sides come up with arguments that range from “they left us, let them come back”, “we are the real MECA-USA”, “we now have peace, let us stay like this”, “we are brothers and sisters and we can achieve more when we are one”. Being dismissive of any one stance will be tantamount to exacerbating the alienation and deepening the cleavage.Who what when and why?
We know who must reconcile, and we think we know when (now) and why, but what about what we must reconcile? Of the four “wh” questions, “what” is the most difficult because therein lies the details of a subsequent partnership. Concerning the others, we must examine our organizational structure and then determine that we are better off with a group consisted of people with opposing convictions. Numbers is not the key to an organization’s success: vision and commitment are. In light of this assertion, however subjective, is it possible that Manyu Division in the South West province can be served better by a bigger organization or by an effective organization? Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. I personally will lean towards effectiveness because I am a results oriented individual (or I think and pretend to be). I am impressed by numbers and facts rather than sentimental posturing. The mistake people who think like me make is that we may think that others think like us. No, not always. People are wired differently and respond positively to issues which have personal pertinence to them. As a teacher, I learned earlier that my students can relate better to me if they can perceive that I care about them first as human beings with feelings. So what do we want to achieve in coming together that we couldn’t by staying apart? In the past, if we were not comfortable with certain people, if we rarely talked to them, if we avoided greeting them, if we twitched each time we heard their names mentioned or saw them, can unity change that?
In the pursuit of unity, We must bear in mind that the notion itself could be illusory and the benefits equally intangible. That does not mean that we should not try.
Why function as two organizations when we can function as one?
Beginning the process: Looking at ourselves, the other and then in the same direction
To establish a working relationship it is of essence that we look at ourselves first. It requires introspection, an examination, an establishment of the self as an instrument with needs. It is essential that we also examine notions we consider as truths which sometimes may have evolved from our perceptions. It is a hard thing to do I must admit. Once that is done, then we must shift our attention to looking at the other person. Of course there is a lot involved in this than the cursory and perfunctory acknowledgement of the other’s presence. Seeing the other person’s needs and understanding their actions does not mean condoning or validating them. It simply means you care enough about them to see that they have an opinion or a perception that may be different from yours. I could have been well served by examples, but I am afraid I may yield to the temptation of imputing blame or absolving someone of a responsibility (if I haven’t done so already!). Finally we should examine what is important to us and the other person and thence look in one direction, the same direction. There is a lot of talking involved here and we must learn to dissociate the individual from their opinions or actions as are symptomatic of ad hominem arguments. Actions and opinions held by our opponents do not necessarily define them as bad people or vice versa. Good people have spoiled good intentions with bad actions. I do not know bad people. Once we’ve established that an action caused friction, we must address it before moving on. It is the most painful process, because it is here that we get to listen to people we can’t stand justify actions that we find ludicrous. The key words are endurance and restraint. Enduring the “pain” and restraining ourselves from condemning can teach us a whole lot. Looking at this process later on can give us tremendous insight into who we are. I must also warn here against the dangers of careless complacency for the sake of getting along. We must be genuine.
What are our options?
Our new unified unidirectional focus or perspective will lead us towards brainstorming options. I have heard and read some propound a theory of blending executives. To these people what is important is that we have a unified executive and all else will follow. Well, it is not as simple as that. I (and I think one or two other people) do not believe that the solution lies here. I believe that there should be something worthier than that, something that touches our pride as Manyu people, something that can erode personal differences. I have no idea what it is. It could be a road, a dance, a project, a ceremony, a person, a traditional concept, etc. As far as options are concerned, the people that have tended to identify with both factions should be consulted first and these options exposed to them or be allowed to come up with the options or whatever works for them. Options may include coming together as one organization, functioning as 2 entities, having different names, staggering the convention dates to increase participation, allowing people to belong to both organizations, forging a unity that includes NOMA, etc. I believe that for the benefit of our children and ourselves, the art of living together can only be perfected if we are in one organization. I do not know a lot of people who belong to NOMA and I think it is unfortunate because they are part of my heritage as well as those of my children.
Forgive and forget? Hush no rush.
The reconciliation process just like healing cannot be rushed. In doing so, we may fail to see all options and fail to explore them. Forgive and forget do not rhyme, neither are they dependent on each other. When someone is wronged, it is selfish for the offending party to expect that simply saying “I am sorry” will trigger a “I forgive you” response or even lead to forgetting by the aggrieved. Wrongs are not equal and the process of apologizing, forgiving and forgetting is different: simple in some and tortuous in others. We cannot ask for forgiveness if we are not fully cognizant of why and what we should be forgiven for. Once we have an idea of what it is that we did that we consider wrong, we must repeat the offence and and reiterate its consequences to the other party. This means they understand the full extent to which our actions hurt them and to us, repeating it gives it a new reality. Forgiveness is not immediate and no one should be pressured into giving it. When I ask for forgiveness, I must understand that it may not be given, but my atonement regardless of the outcome must be genuine. People are smart enough to detect a genuine reaction. Forgetting is a whole different story. In general, conflicts create emotional tears that cannot be mended. A pastor recounted a reconciliation meeting in which a husband insisted on telling him “everything” about his wife. The pastor immediately noticed how hurt the woman was (she was sobbing and shaking uncontrollably) and he decided that he didn’t want to hear it. In our pain, in our anger we end up breaching gaps that we can never bridge again. The woman can forgive the man in this pastor’s story, but I don’t need divine illumination to predict that she will never forget the disgrace she was subjected to. Is it possible to forget? Yes with the right conditions. We must constantly pursue actions that go further away from the wrong we caused. No one deserves to be pressured into forgiving and or forgetting. Consider forgiving someone even before they ask for it. This release you of any ill feeling towards the person and may take away any pressure from you in the event of a change of heart by the other person.
The way forward.
Regardless of how many organizations we end up with, we must start shifting away from the things that have been sources of headache for us.
Conventions: they cost a lot of money and are not very productive. We must analyze their goals, and move on from there. Are conventions opportunities for us to show off our newly acquired traditional dresses on Friday and and our Dior dresses on Saturday night? Are they like family reunions where members who have been out of touch for a while decide to come together and celebrate their oneness? Are they a touristic opportunity for us: sightseeing, discovering museums, landmarks and other attractions in some states? Are they a fundraising opportunity? Are they an essential instrument of governing our association(s)? What is the deal behind conventions? Must they be done every year?
Being together, we will always disagree. As long as every human being’s relevance is almost as essential to his/her existence as food and water, we will always encounter clashes. We may create as many organisations as possible, split as many as suits us, the fact remains that we will always be aware of our personal spaces and always take a defensive stance in the midst of the best call for unity. The argument has always been raised by Manyu people that Manyu people too garruloust, don’t respect people, are too quarrelsome, don’t respect authority, all want to be important (relevance)... Sadly enough, these people have tended to drift away from an organisation to which they could have brought some sanity defeating Wright’s caution “do not try to run away from the things that hurt you [...]. The things that hurt sometimes is all you got”.
Elections will (and must be) part of the process by which we select those amongst us that fit the call for leadership. Some organisations have fallen victims to the convenience of prescribing spontaneous remedy to most of their problems. A chapter for instance decided to adopt a policy on grounds that it is done in Cameroon, yielding to the fallacious tendency that “what is done/was done back home” is argument enough that it is good. The failings of such systems stare at us in the face and intellectual honesty requires that we acknowledge them, while practical survival requires that we depart from them. Electioneering is the only process by which we can achieve acceptable consensus.
Condemning what is wrong is an essential part of our togetherness. Many people have remained silent for reasons best known to them, but unfortunately have given credence to unchallenged statements that in their repetition have soured or discredited opposing views. Many factors have accounted for this silence: unwillingness to offend people who are our brothers, cousins, in-laws, employers, wives, husbands, concubines, friends, etc. In being selectively complacent, we have done two things that are wrong: lied to ourselves and harmed our organisations. Fear of exposing shady deals cooked for the convenience of sometimes winning an election; reluctance to attract attention and insults from from people and other reasons have accounted for some of us not being on the side of the truth.
The association is greater than any individual. Take a look at any organisation that has sound principles and you will see that its existence is not linked to any particular individual, but to the sum total of its members and most especially, its vision. Organisations that have allowed themselves to be defined by individual members have a hard time existing in the absence of these super members.
The respect of authority is essential to our success ergo a leadership that commands our respect. Leadership requires in itself an ability to follow, listen, be humble, take responsibility for our actions. On the other hand, we must admit to ourselves that being human, our leaders will make mistakes and we must be ready to accept them despite this.
In conclusion
What you read here lacks the authority of a forceful conviction and may not withstand empirical scrutiny, but stems from observations of how we have proceeded from dissent to a fragmented organizations back to reunification. These observations focus on MECA-USA or what it used to be. I hope anyone reading this comes out with the agreement that there is a manner to proceed in the case where organisations disagree and split. I have been guided here by plain common sense, wisdom from a collection of sources which have not been quoted directly. I also allowed myself to be guided by my rebellious instinct against the “divide to conquer” principle that we have unconsciously assimilated as a modus operandi in Cameroon. It has not and will NEVER serve us well. I have an unflinching conviction that we achieve more when we speak with one voice.Thanks for reading.
Comments