After every heavy rainfall, the road leading to Pa Taku’s farm in Bole Bakundu becomes barely passable. Trucks carrying produce slow to a crawl, transport costs rise and harvests are delayed. Standing beside a vehicle trapped in deep mud pit, he asks a question that has become familiar to many Cameroonians: “Who is going to fix this?”

For Pa Taku, the answer matters less than the outcome. “People don’t ask who is responsible anymore,” he says. “They just want problems solved.”

Across Cameroon, governance is experienced not through constitutional articles but through roads, schools, hospitals and public services. Yet when projects stall or services fail, responsibility can appear difficult to trace. Is it the council, the regional authority, a ministry or the Presidency?

The Constitution appears to offer a straightforward answer. Article 1(2) declares that “The Republic of Cameroon shall be a decentralized unitary State.” On paper, authority is distributed across national and local institutions within a single constitutional framework. In practice, however, the relationship between constitutional design and political reality is more complex.

Understanding that gap begins with understanding how the Constitution says Cameroon is supposed to be governed.

The Constitutional Blueprint

Cameroon’s governance system is the product of decades of constitutional evolution. Following reunification in 1961, the country adopted a federal system before becoming a unitary state in 1972. Constitutional reforms in 1996 later introduced decentralization, seeking to bring public administration closer to citizens while preserving national unity.

Within this framework, Article 5 assigns the President responsibility for defining the policy of the nation, ensuring respect for the Constitution and guaranteeing the continuity of the State. Article 55 establishes regions and councils as decentralized territorial authorities with administrative and financial autonomy, subject to state supervision as provided by law.

The Constitution therefore envisages a state in which strong national leadership coexists with empowered local institutions. Whether that constitutional vision reflects governance in practice has been the subject of decades of scholarship. Constitutional law scholar Charles Manga Fombad argues that constitutions do more than allocate powers. They must also create institutions capable of exercising those powers effectively and holding one another accountable.

On paper, the constitutional blueprint is clear. The more difficult question is whether authority flows through these institutions as the Constitution intends.

Governance in Practice

If the Constitution explains who governs, governance asks a different question: how is power actually exercised? The distinction is important. Government refers to the institutions established by law; governance describes how those institutions make decisions, implement policies and respond to citizens’ needs.

Whether Cameroon has achieved that balance has long been debated by constitutional scholars and political observers. Charles Manga Fombad argues that effective governance depends not only on constitutional design but also on institutions capable of exercising their powers independently while remaining accountable to one another. A constitution, however carefully written, succeeds only when political practice reflects its principles.

That debate is echoed by those who have served within Cameroon’s institutions. In an interview with Bonteh Magazine, former SDF Senator Ngam Honoré described Parliament as “a rubber stamp institution completely overpowered and controlled by the Presidency.” His remarks reflect his experience as a legislator rather than an established constitutional fact. Nevertheless, they mirror a broader body of scholarship that questions whether executive authority has come to dominate Cameroon’s system of governance.

Public perceptions often reinforce this debate. In Buea, taxi driver Mike believes that important decisions are made by a small political elite far removed from the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens. Whether or not that perception reflects institutional reality, it illustrates a wider challenge facing democratic governance: public confidence depends not only on constitutional arrangements but also on whether citizens believe institutions genuinely represent their interests.

These differing perspectives reveal that governance is measured less by constitutional text than by institutional performance. Citizens rarely judge the state by the distribution of legal powers. They judge it by whether schools function, roads are maintained, businesses receive services efficiently and public officials remain accountable.

The Constitution may establish the architecture of the state, but governance is ultimately tested in its daily operation. It is within that space between legal authority and lived experience that the question of who really governs Cameroon becomes most difficult, and most important, to answer.

Decentralization: Promise and Practice

Decentralization lies at the heart of Cameroon’s constitutional vision. The 2019 General Code of Regional and Local Authorities presents it as a means of promoting local democracy, accelerating development and improving public service delivery by bringing government closer to citizens. In recent years, that commitment has also been reflected in public spending.

According to the 2026 Citizen Budget, Regional and Local Authorities were allocated approximately CFAF 1.106 trillion, representing about 12.5% of the national budget. The General Decentralisation Allocation has likewise increased, rising from CFAF 252.5 billion in 2023 to CFAF 303.5 billion in 2025. These figures indicate a sustained financial commitment to decentralization.

Yet larger budgets do not automatically translate into greater local autonomy. Questions remain over how much decision-making authority has shifted from the centre to regional and municipal institutions.

Former Senator Ngam Honoré argues that the transfer of power remains incomplete. “Cameroon still runs in a highly centralized manner,” he told Bonteh Magazine. “The mayors and regional presidents appear more like auxiliaries of the administration.” His assessment reflects one political perspective, but it also captures a broader debate over whether decentralization has redistributed authority as extensively as envisioned by the Constitution.

For citizens such as Ngefack, a roadside vendor in Douala, governance is ultimately judged through everyday interactions with public institutions. “The problem is not only the leaders,” he says. “Even lower-level officials sometimes fail to serve the public as they should.” His observation suggests that effective governance depends not only on constitutional reforms but also on how institutions perform at every level.

Ultimately, the question “Who really governs Cameroon?” cannot be answered by the Constitution alone. Laws define authority, institutions exercise it and budgets support it. But citizens experience governance through results.

For Pa Taku, the farmer in Bole Bakundu, the measure of governance remains simple: whether the road to his farm is repaired when it needs to be. The Constitution tells us where authority begins. Institutions determine how it moves. Citizens reveal whether it works. That is where governance is judged.