Prof. Yenshu Emmanuel Vubo, a political sociologist with the University of Buea, revisits the role and influence of different professional corps in Cameroon.

Over the years, some professional bodies (like those of lawyers, medical doctors and pharmacists) have been very active in Cameroon, making their views known on burning national issues.

However, other professional bodies are little known; so also is their influence on public opinion. What accounts for this situation?

Some professional associations are very visible because of the importance of their activities.

Medical doctors, nurses, journalists, professors, lawyers, drivers, teachers, traders, etc, are involved in activities that impact everybody.

When they come out to give a view on crucial national questions or mobilise for a cause, it affects everybody. Other activities that are less central in the life of society may be organised, but will be less influential.

Look at the case of the councils of notaries public or bailiffs, laboratory technicians or scientists and freight handling professionals.

They are important, but their activities are so specialised that they do not resonate on the rest of society.

Poor organisation accounts for some professions not being visible at all, talk less of influencing public opinion.

Drivers are so organised that they are more likely to be heard than the weak trade unions we have today.

In fact, the impact of trade unions has waned to such an extent that one wonders whether they do even exist.

They play a central role in the economic, social and political life of every society. But the poor state of organisation and mobilisation of trade unions in Cameroon makes their influence close to zero.

However, other professional corps like journalists and artistes/musicians are often characterised by squabbling and creation of factions. What is responsible for such recurrent disorder?

The problem with journalists is not really disorder. Journalists and most liberal professionals are divided along employment lines.

Journalists who work for corporate employers and State media outfits are different from freelance journalists and those who work for independent media. They therefore do not have the same professional interests and problems.

It is difficult for them to come under one umbrella. It is even undesirable to bring them under one structure except for issues of protection of practice (which do not evidently have implications at societal level).

On the contrary, some associations of journalists have been very organised and influential as far as issues of the entire society are concerned.

Politicisation has tended to sway factions of associations within this profession such that influence is sought under political cover rather than as professionals.

Cameroonian musicians are more concerned with politics (some eagerly seeking to take cover under the party in power or the President) than with practice and organisation to protect and foster the profession.

The lure of politics has destroyed many professions in Cameroon, including artistic production. In the end, there is even nothing to organise for.

The cacophony in structures that rise and fall is not about professional organisation: it is a struggle by persons with no credibility for the management of dividends of authors’ rights.

Such people are always ready to disparage icons like Manu Dibango.

How do persons with one or two obscure records or, at the very best, records with an average impact, wish to control the two or three-decade monumental productions of Misse Ngo François, Nkotti François, etc? The less successful should respect the more successful.

On the other hand, the interference of university professors in the name of organisation or cabinet ministers who wish to have a say only goes to aggravate matters.

Do musicians have a say in the professional organisations of professors? Why should the reverse be true?

These are professional matters that have to be left to professionals, with any other expertise only coming on hire.

Does the level of organisation or influence of professionals of different corps in a country have anything to do with the vibrancy of its civil society?

Yes, definitely. Associations are part of the civil society and are crucial to its functioning. Their success or challenges reflect the level of vibrancy of the civil society.

Similarly, organisational problems reflect the relative youthfulness of our civil society, but politicisation (the pressure to bifurcate along pro-regime, neutrality or anti-regime) is a real danger to a budding civil society.

The strength of the civil society lies in its independence and autonomy.
When this is lost to politics (whatever side of the divide), there is a danger to democracy because people cannot organise to advance their interests without tying them to politics or political outcomes.

Imagine a situation whereby the wage of a worker or his/her working conditions cannot be negotiated except by way of a political decision (outcome of elections, for example). These are normally negotiated through civil society structures, which are trade unions and professional associations.

In general, what importance can be paid to the views expressed by professional bodies on national issues?

The utmost importance. They are professional and thus based on expertise. Professionals say what they know better than others.

This is the reality of our world of specialisation and division of labour. The views of professionals will even be incomprehensible or esoteric to outsiders, but that is how things happen.

However, professionals should not use their positions of influence to mislead and dupe people who trust and rely on them for reliable information.

Professionals are also bound by ethical constraints to be truthful and responsible to the public in the views they express.

In the end, the public may not be so dull, stupid or credulous as the professionals think.

By the way, the public will definitely have other contradictory voices even from other professionals in the same field who will cross-check what is said by colleagues.

One should therefore beware of the risks of abuse in addressing public issues by professionals.

The view of a professional association (as in the case of scientific associations) is subject to verification; it is not gospel truth.