(Published in The Post issue of Friday 17 August, 2007, herein republished for its essence vis a vis the goings on between the Cameroon political divide) Even if the opposition, especially the Social Democratic Front, SDF, were to decide not to go to Parliament, following the severely flawed general elections of July 22, it would require MPs with a flawless attachment to principles and a high sense of sacrifice to resist the lucrative possibilities and the seductive charms of office that come along with a Parliamentary seat.

It is obvious that candidates incur considerable financial debts to run for political office and those who make it consider their success as an opportunity for recuperation. This is where personal motivation seems to have the upper hand over collective principle and the rules governing the National Assembly make it impossible for any political formation to legally restrain any elected member from taking his or her seat in the House.

The flip side of the coin reveals a different scenario wherein those who genuinely or fraudulently lost the election will have to accept their financial losses in a spirit of true sportsmanship. And if we expect losers to demonstrate a sense of sportsmanship, why should proponents of boycott not demand that same spirit of sacrifice from the winners?

If the SDF were to decide on a boycott that may not be respected by successful Parliamentary candidates and proceeded to expel defaulters from the party, it would, at least, go on the record that the party had resolved not to be part of a legislature in which it never could have been possible for it to play any role at all. With only 14 seats going for it until the yet-to be scheduled rerun in five constituencies, the SDF will not be in a position to form a Parliamentary group, which by regulation requires control over at least 15 seats.

Some critics have expressed the opinion that, should the SDF eventually be in a position to form a group, it should refrain from accepting positions in the Parliamentary bureau. They argue that SDF membership of the bureau, with all the perks that come with the territory, exposes office holders to corruption and makes them accomplices of the ruling CPDM party and its anti-people policies.

In my opinion, the presence of the opposition whose combined strength as at now is a mere 21 seats in a 180-seat Parliament automatically makes them accomplices of the CPDM. Even if they were to occasionally stage a walk-out to demonstrate disagreement over certain draft laws and resolutions, they would still be morally responsible for every decision taken by Parliament.

Another major question on the minds of many Cameroonians is whether or not the SDF should eventually join the new Government that President Biya is widely expected to appoint in the days ahead. The SDF has persistently dismissed the idea of joining the executive. It may have very good reasons to hold firm on that position.

It is not my intention to provide its leadership with any justification for not joining the Government, but it would be recalled that the late Professor Emeritus Bernard Fonlon had examined the implication of a Coalition Government as far back as 1964, when the Federal Republic of Cameroon was hardly three years old.

Dr. Fonlon, in a memo to President Ahidjo in which he deplored the marginalisation of the ruling West Cameroon (Anglophone) party, the Kamerun National Democratic Party, KNDP, in the conduct of national affairs, which had been completely monopolised by the ruling Francophone party, the Union Camerounaise (majority), reminded the Francophone hegemony, that "when you share a government, you share full responsibility for its action: you share the credit for its achievements, the blame for its blunders. Thus, it cannot be a matter of indifference to you how this Government is constituted or what policy it espouses."

Biya, in his nationwide address on Tuesday, was explicitly dangling the carrot when he spoke of the possibilities of a broad-based Government; a union Government which, he said, would include parties whose election results may have fallen below expectation. What he was telling the opposition, in effect, was that they should not feel excluded and that a Coalition Government would be in the higher interest of the State.

Dr. Fonlon had remarked in his memo that "any Chief of Government or State picks his team as he judges best, but this surely does not exclude consultation with his partners in coalition to hear their views about his choice." Biya is not the consultative type and could get up one morning full of mischief enough to include a sprinkling or two of SDF militants in the new Government and the party can go to hell with its policy of non-participation in-Government.

Successful candidates of the Legislative election have up till Monday to validate their Parliamentary membership and, by the time you read these lines, the SDF should have made its stand clear on whether or not to join the National Assembly.

Whichever way the die is cast, the question remains: is it more useful for the SDF to join a Parliament in which it cannot even create minimum impact or to join a Government in which its members can, at least, imprint its own style of governance and avail themselves of the opportunity for apprenticeship?