If our ultimate choice to revert to a multi-party system some seventeen years ago, precisely in 1990, bore any meaning in the life of our nation Cameroon, it would certainly be the pride of belonging to a committee of nations that believes in the values as well as the advantages of a genuine democracy. We even think that the passion for democracy was so strong that it so much impressed those political organisations which were formed during this period to include the word ‘’Democratic’’ to form the names of their various political parties.
Take for example, the names of the two major political parties in the country, that is, the Cameroon Peoples ‘’Democratic’’ Movement, CPDM, and the Social ‘’Democratic’’ Front SDF, to name but this few. From all indications, this expresses the desired passion for equality before the Law and respect for the views and rights of all before the Law. These are certainly the pillars of democracy, put it whichever way.
If we are therefore seeming to be embarking on an analogy, based on the principle of equality of all legal political organisations operating in the country today, it is simply because we need to consolidate our democracy in such a way that it is not founded on the nagging principle of double standards dispensation of yesteryears. Our new found faith in a genuine democracy ought to have landed us on the right shores far away from unnecessary ploys and arguments based on who is telling the truth. 
It is therefore pertinent to take a critical look at the recent ban on an SDF planned rally and march, which was expected to take place on Saturday, October, 21, 2017 in Douala, but which never held. Several reasons have been advanced by both sides, first by the Littoral regional authorities justifying the ban. On the other hand, Littoral SDF authorities who have also raised counter arguments against what government agents strongly claim was a fragrant deviation from what the rally and march were intended for, and on the basis of which the authorisation for the rally was issued.
If we insist on taking a critical look at the arguments presented by both parties on the issue of the ban, it is because, too often these days, the population has been subjected to undue polemics over certain issues where government position has tended to be questioned, and truths have been toyed with. According to the Littoral regional chairman of the SDF, Hon. Jean Michel Nintcheu, the rally and the march were to sensitise party militants and Cameroonians at large, on federalism as an option for the form of state which he claims has always featured in the party’s manifestoes during past elections.
Secondly, the SDF boss added that the march was in solidarity with their ‘’Anglophone brothers who have been ‘’massacred’’ and arrested during the demonstrations of September 22 and October 1, 2017, respectively. The SDF regional boss maintains that it was on the basis of these points and others that they obtained a receipt from the competent authorities in Douala, in response to their application to hold a rally, and a peaceful march. Unfortunately, this was annulled two days to the date of the planned march. One can understand the preoccupation of government, as well as its unwillingness to admit that there were deaths, arrests and those arrested taken away to unknown destinations.
On other hand, the Littoral authorities argue that the SDF had deviated from what was agreed as per their request to hold the rally and march, stating that the occasion was fashioned in a way that, according to intelligence reports reaching them, would have led to violence and that, secessionist militants had been alleged to have infiltrated the SDF rally and march and that other political parties had joined the SDF in their march in solidarity with their Anglophone brothers.
At the bottom of all these points that the Littoral authorities have raised, one still sees the unpreparedness of government to accept that too often it has insisted that their version of analysis of situations is what bears the truth.
The truth is that Anglophones were arrested, tortured and killed and some carted away to detention camps outside where the alleged crime was committed. This is the simple truth. The only difference may be in the figures of those arrested or killed. And if a legal political party feels it should sympathise with the victims of the unfortunate situation, we think they have the right to do so, so long as they keep to their expressed wish.
This not-withstanding, we still believe that the positions that governments the world over usually take, or even their analysis on some issues, do not always turn out to be the reality. Take the issue of the United States under George Bush and the Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction which many contested as being untrue. At the end, it was proved that Saddam Hussein never had any such weapons. It was however too late. Saddam Hussein was already in his grave. In the case of the banned SDF rally, the intelligence reports could have been anything but the truth. No one can say for certain.
We are saying this because this is not the first time that SDF and other opposition rallies have been bannned in Douala and other places without convincing reasons, while rallies of the ruling CPDM are authorised leisurely.
If we pride ourselves as being a democracy in the true sense of it, let us keep strictly to the rules. Double standards or favouritism are certainly not within the framework of genuine democracy. It thrives on equality before the law as well as equal opportunities for all. Let us therefore not create situations in which some of our actions will be misjudged as bias and unfair.