By Andrew Nsoseka
A senior opposition official has issued a stark warning that Cameroon’s political stagnation is being sustained not only by the government but by a citizenry increasingly substituting online outrage for tangible civic action.
In a sharply worded opinion piece, Ndifor Richard, the Deputy Secretary for Political Education and Training of the Social Democratic Front (SDF), contends that, while social media has opened new avenues for debate, it has also fostered a culture of “spectatorship” that actively hinders the path to political change.
Drawing an explicit line from digital commentary to the polling station, Ndifor argues that a “large number of people who present themselves online as advocates for change do not take part in any concrete political action.”
He elaborates: “They do not attend protest marches. They do not contribute financially to civic or political campaigns, even in small amounts. They do not volunteer as polling agents during elections. Many are not registered to vote. Some who are registered do not vote at all.”
The core of his critique is that this disconnect between speech and action has profound consequences. “Political change does not happen through expression alone,” Ndifor states unequivocally. “It requires participation, organisation, and personal cost. When citizens limit their engagement to online criticism, they shift all responsibility to others while claiming moral superiority.”
He identifies a pattern of excuse-making that accompanies this inaction. “Social media critics often explain failure through conspiracy theories,” he writes. “Every setback is attributed to hidden deals, betrayal, or external manipulation.” While acknowledging that manipulation exists, Ndifor warns that, “constant reliance on such explanations can become a way of avoiding personal responsibility. It is easier to believe that everything is rigged than to admit one has not shown up.”
The article also highlights a counterproductive hostility within digital spaces toward those who are actively engaged. “Activists, opposition leaders, and ordinary volunteers are frequently mocked or insulted online,” Ndifor observes. “Any mistake, however small, is treated as proof of total failure or bad faith. This creates a culture of fear and paralysis. People who try to act are punished, while those who do nothing face no cost at all.”
Further, he points to the divisive role of online commentary, noting it “often pit[s] parties and leaders against each other, sometimes without understanding strategy, constraints, or context. Instead of strengthening collective action, this behaviour weakens already fragile political efforts.”
Ndifor is careful to affirm the necessity of scrutiny, stating, “It is important to be clear: criticism is necessary. Leaders must be questioned. Strategies must be debated.” However, he draws a critical distinction: “But criticism without participation is not accountability; it is withdrawal disguised as engagement. A citizen who refuses to vote, refuses to organise, and refuses to support others cannot claim the same moral position as one who is trying, even imperfectly.”
His conclusion presents a sobering assessment of shared responsibility for the nation’s political gridlock. “Cameroon’s political crisis is not caused only by those in power,” Ndifor asserts. “It is also sustained by a growing culture of spectatorship. Many citizens watch, comment, judge, and condemn, but do not act. Over time, this habit erodes trust, discourages participation, and normalises failure.”
Ndifor’s piece ends with a direct call to bridge the gap between online discourse and civic duty. “If change is truly the goal, then social media criticism must be accompanied by responsibility,” he writes. “This means registering to vote, voting consistently, supporting civic initiatives, protecting the vote, and accepting that political work involves mistakes.” His final admonition is pointed: “Without these basic commitments, online criticism becomes empty, and those who practise it should reflect seriously on their own role in maintaining the status quo.”