The Mbororo and their neighbours

The Mbororo constitute a minority in the Western Grassfields, accounting for 5–10 per cent of the region's total population (Boutrais Reference Boutrais and Blanc-Pamard1984: 230; 1995/6: 548). The majority are Grassfielders who belong to linguistically distinct communities but share common features of economic and socio-political organization. They are largely subsistence farmers and are organized in centralized chiefdoms and confederations. Most Grassfielders are both Christians and adherents of African local religions. They entertain strong political, economic and religious bonds with their settlement area based on citizenship in a chiefdom, ancestral ties, and links with the land's ritual topography. They thus consider themselves ‘natives’ and ‘guardians of the land’. A third population group are Hausa, a term locally used to denote the heterogeneous group of Muslim village dwellers. They include descendants of early Hausa traders, sedentary Fulbe from Nigeria and Northern Cameroon, and local Grassfields converts.Footnote ² They are a tiny minority and are represented in only a few urban and rural centres. As Muslims, Mbororo and Hausa also constitute a religious minority.

The Mbororo community in the research area is internally diversified, comprising members of two sub-groups, namely Jaafun and Aku. Originally, both groups lived in the Kano area in present-day Nigeria. In the course of the nineteenth century they adopted diverging migration trajectories and developed distinct sub-ethnic identities (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 15–210; Dognin 1981). Driven by a continuous search for new pastures, the Jaafun started entering the Western Grassfields in the early twentieth century. They came from northern Cameroon, mainly the Adamawa Plateau, and established themselves on the Bamenda Highlands. The Aku followed later, from the 1940s onwards, attracted by favourable grazing conditions and administrative policies. They entered the Grassfields mainly from the Jos Plateau in Nigeria, and settled on the lowland pastures on the northern fringes of the Bamenda Highlands.³

Mbororo socio-political and economic trajectories (1910s–1980s)

The first Mbororo to enter the Western Grassfields were members of the Jaafun community of Lompta in Adamawa. They established themselves in the vicinity of Bamenda, the regional capital, in the late 1910s. Their settlement was named Sabga after its initiator, and later became the headquarters of the Mbororo community in north-west Cameroon. During the subsequent decades, many more Mbororo were attracted to the Western Grassfields, as the Bamenda Highlands became renowned for their favourable ecological conditions, offering fertile pastures and numerous salt springs. Most pastoralists migrated in kin or lineage groups, headed by an Mbororo leader (Fulfulde: ardo) who also acted as their representative to the Grassfields communities and the colonial administration.⁴

The British colonial administration supported the influx of Mbororo pastoralists as a means of diversifying the regional economy and augmenting its tax income. Concurrently, local Grassfields chiefs welcomed the pastoralists’ establishment on their chiefdom's territory, as long as they paid tribute and acknowledged their hosts’ territorial and political primacy. Even though population densities were relatively low and farming and pasture lands abundant, crop damage was a recurrent problem, as the Mbororo's practice of extensive grazing and seasonal transhumance collided with the Grassfielders’ system of shifting cultivation. In consequence, Grassfields farmers looked on the pastoralists’ settlement with mixed feelings, and occasionally responded with public protest and violence (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 734; Dafinger and Pelican Reference Dafinger and Pelican2006; Harshbarger 1995). The British colonial administration was faced with the predicament of implementing its policy of indirect rule and, at the same time, protecting the Mbororo against the hostility of Grassfields farmers and exactions by local chiefs. This dilemma resulted in frequently changing policies regarding the pastoral sector and the management of farmer–herder relations (Njeuma and Awasom 1988, 1990).

Despite difficulties with the local farming population, many Mbororo benefited from the favourable ecological environment of the Bamenda Highlands and prospered over time. By the mid-1940s, many had settled permanently in their rainy season camp, with only part of the family undertaking a seasonal transhumance. This trend towards sedentarization was further endorsed by the administrative imposition of ‘grazing rules’ that restricted pastoral mobility (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 115–18). At the same time, the Mbororo in the Western Grassfields developed a conscious political identity. Perceiving their pastoral interests to be inadequately represented by local Grassfields chiefs, a group of outspoken Mbororo leaders appealed for direct representation to the colonial administration. However, the British headquarters in Nigeria denied the Mbororo the status of a politically independent minority and classified them as ‘strangers’ rather than ‘natives’ (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 112–15). In response, the Mbororo leaders formed a ‘Fulani Council’ that, although its existence was never officially acknowledged, effectively acted as an intermediary between the Mbororo population and the British administration. Furthermore, the British granted the Muslim community limited juridical autonomy (Awasom Reference Awasom1984: 226–41, 269–303). Yet it was only after Cameroon's independence that the Mbororo attained Cameroonian citizenship, and in the context of constitutional changes of 1972 an official say in pastoral matters (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 182–5).

The adoption of a more sedentary lifestyle also altered the pastoralists’ economic strategies. In order to safeguard their pastoral resources, many Mbororo started to combine their herding activities with limited subsistence agriculture. Depending on good relations with their Grassfields neighbours, they began to cultivate small plots close to their settlements, growing maize, tubers and vegetables for home consumption. Legal entitlement to cultivate within the grazing area was provided in 1962, but the size of farming plots was restricted to 0.4 hectares per family (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 797–8). Jaafun and Aku adopted different strategies regarding their farming activities. While Jaafun relied primarily on employing local farmers to cultivate their fields, Aku tended to perform most tasks themselves. These different attitudes reflected their distinct pastoral development and previous experiences with agriculture (Pelican Reference Dafinger and Pelican2006: 211–15). Economic diversification was also encouraged by the British colonial administration, and subsequently the Cameroonian state, both as a means of augmenting rural production and as a way of improving farmer–herder relations. The assumption was that comprehensive knowledge of both economic systems would promote mutual understanding. Yet, although many Mbororo and some Grassfielders were both cattle herders and farmers, the notion of distinct ethnic-occupational categories remained vivid and farmer–herder conflicts continued to be perceived in ethnic terms (Pelican Reference Dafinger and Pelican2006: 201–48).

Changes in Mbororo mobility and economy also affected the socio-cultural sphere. With growing wealth, many Mbororo aimed at improving their living conditions by investing in consumer goods and Islamic education. Mbororo youths gradually adopted the practices and consumption patterns of their Grassfields peers, such as frequenting local bars, attending Grassfielders’ rituals and festivities, or dating Grassfields partners. Mbororo elders considered such practices incompatible with their Mbororo and Muslim identity (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 967–70; Frantz 1986). As they worried about their youngsters’ acculturation to a non-Muslim environment, they emphasized an Islamic lifestyle and encouraged Islamic education while rejecting Western or Christian schooling. It was only gradually that Mbororo individuals became aware of the practical advantages of Western education and started sending some of their children to school. By the late 1980s just a few Mbororo had undergone secondary or university education. Yet, as we will see below, members of this small elite were extremely instrumental in exploring new political strategies.

Eventually, in the second half of the twentieth century, the Mbororo began to face socio-economic difficulties as a result of increasing population density and competition over natural resources (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 679–712). Many families experienced gradual impoverishment. While their family sizes continuously increased, the rate of herd growth stagnated due to the effects of overgrazing. In addition, farmer–herder conflicts became exacerbated, both as a result of farmers’ expansion into grazing zones and the Mbororo's negligence in the adequate control of their cattle herds. Many Mbororo spent considerable wealth on administrative and judicial procedures that benefited state agents rather than producing lasting solutions. Furthermore, as a legacy of the colonial period, the Mbororo lacked formal institutions of political representation, and largely relied on patron–client relationships in defending their economic and political interests. Such relationships often developed between Mbororo herders and Grassfields individuals who had an interest in cattle husbandry, a proximity to the local hierarchy and a certain standard of education. These relationships were – and still are – largely of an individual character and were frequently couched in the terminology of friendship (Pelican Reference Geschiere, Englund and Nyamnjoh2004). However, patron–client relations with local Grassfielders proved ineffective in withstanding influential entrepreneurs who began to institute private and state ranches on Mbororo grazing land.Footnote ⁵ In addition, their relative wealth and lack of formal education had made Mbororo prime targets of the venality of state agents.

As a result, the Mbororo in the Western Grassfields experienced themselves as a politically marginalized and economically exploited minority. The British colonial administration had classified them as ‘strangers’ and had denied them autonomous political representation. Local Grassfielders’ attempts to integrate them into their socio-political community constituted a constant source of dependency and exploitation. Under the regime of Cameroon's first President, Ahmadou Ahidjo, they qualified as Cameroonian citizens, but were subsumed under the cultural category of ‘northerners’ on account of their Muslim identity and Fulbe ethnicity. Consequently, Mbororo who were born and grew up in the Grassfields still counted as ‘strangers’ to the area, with limited rights to the region's natural and state resources. It was only with Cameroon's democratization in the 1990s that the Mbororo eventually obtained the opportunity to engage in the political arena and to express their interests and grievances directly to the state.

MBOSCUDA activities in north-west Cameroon

In this article, I am particularly concerned with MBOSCUDA's interaction with the Cameroonian state and international development agencies. MBOSCUDA is a national, membership-based organization with approximately 30,000 members and branches in nearly all provinces (MBOSCUDA press release, Bamenda, 16 March 2005). It was formed on the initiative of young, mostly educated Mbororo individuals who were searching for answers to their shared experience of a crisis in Mbororo cultural and political identity. MBOSCUDA's founding members explicitly distanced themselves from sedentary Town Fulbe in northern Cameroon and stressed their identification with (agro-)pastoral Fulbe. They argued that the two populations’ interests and problems differed substantially and that the Mbororo in particular lacked efficient strategies of political representation to the state. They designed a number of regional programmes aimed at the revitalization of Mbororo cultural practices, the improvement of Mbororo women's socio-economic situation, the promotion of Mbororo children's education, and the improvement of pastoral conditions. A number of these programmes have been realized with the support of local communities and national or international non-governmental organizations.

MBOSCUDA's most active branch is in the North West Province, where leading members have learned from the socio-political and organizational example of their Grassfields neighbours. Most educated Mbororo are familiar with Grassfielders’ institutional practices, as many have spent considerable time in the households of Grassfields acquaintances who supported their quest for education. In north-west Cameroon transformations in Mbororo self-perception and political strategies are also more pronounced than in other parts of the country.

In the initial phase, MBOSCUDA members were preoccupied with convincing the Mbororo of the advantages of joint action and collective political representation. As a result of their pastoral heritage, Mbororo were used to pursuing their interests via individual strategies, such as patron–client relationships. Their solidarity networks focused on the kin or lineage group. Moreover, interaction between Jaafun and Aku was limited. MBOSCUDA activists, however, encouraged both sub-groups to see themselves as one and pursue collective strategies. In this context, the phrase ‘don't make pulaaku’ or in Fulfulde ‘taa wadda pulaaku’ became a popular slogan among MBOSCUDA sympathizers (Davis Reference Davis1995). In their view, pulaaku – or behaving like a pullo (sing. of Fulbe) – was an outdated strategy and no longer compatible with the requirements of their current economic and political situation. They thus called on individuals to transcend socio-cultural barriers and to express disagreement openly.Footnote ⁹ Many Mbororo elders took offence and accused MBOSCUDA of eroding Mbororo morale and identity. Furthermore, as part of their cultural renewal programme, MBOSCUDA aimed at revitalizing Mbororo youth culture by encouraging singing, dancing and the display of horse-riding skills during public meetings. This engendered the disapproval of Muslim clerics who reproached MBOSCUDA for promoting immoral and aggressive behaviour among Mbororo youth. Gradually, MBOSCUDA officials adopted a more inclusive strategy, involving Mbororo elders and Muslim scholars in the planning and execution of their programmes.

By the second half of the 1990s, MBOSCUDA was widely established among Mbororo in the Western Grassfields. In order to realize its community development projects, the association sought the collaboration of international NGOs such as the German Development Service and Village AiD, a UK funding-partner agency. As a result of this collaboration, and in line with current trends in international development policies and global rights discourses, MBOSCUDA shifted its initial focus from redefining Mbororo identity to redefining Mbororo political and legal status (Duni et al. 2005; Hickey 2002, 2007). Its earlier focus on women's empowerment and children's education remained operational, and a new programme component was introduced, aimed at the strengthening of civil awareness among Mbororo.Footnote ¹⁰ MBOSCUDA's current projects include training women in alternative income strategies, the establishment of Anglo-Arabic schools (co-educational schools that provide primary school education in English as well as instruction in Arabic language and Muslim religion), and the provision of legal advice in land disputes and in cases of human rights abuse and illegal extortion by government officials. On account of these activities MBOSCUDA is well-regarded among Mbororo in the Western Grassfields, many of whom have benefited from its ongoing projects.

Redefining Mbororo regional and national citizenship

MBOSCUDA significantly contributed to promoting civil awareness among Mbororo, and also succeeded in redefining Mbororo political and legal status vis-à-vis the state. I will now focus on these two achievements and illustrate the ways in which Mbororo individuals justify their claims to regional citizenship and national minority status.

In 2000 new computerized identity cards were issued and MBOSCUDA encouraged Mbororo citizens to register. While in the previous system, Mbororo were generally registered as being born in northern Cameroon, the new identity cards indicated their actual birthplace. Mbororo hence qualified as regional citizens with claims and rights to natural resources and political representation in their home areas. Concurrently, the association also encouraged Mbororo individuals to stand as candidates in municipal elections and to participate actively in community development projects.

Many Mbororo in the Grassfields acquired the new identity cards and expressed their satisfaction with being recognized as regional citizens. As they argued, they have been living in their current settlement area for several decades. Their children have grown up with Grassfields children, have learnt their neighbours’ language, have adopted a number of Grassfields customs, and don't know any other home. Furthermore, they have integrated themselves into local Grassfields communities, participating in communal activities and supporting the local Grassfields chief. They thus see themselves as able members of Grassfields chiefdoms, and claim rights and belonging in the same way as their Grassfields neighbours. Furthermore, some influential Mbororo communities, such as the one in Sabga, have developed an exceptional preoccupation with their group history as a way of endorsing their claims to power and land (Pelican Reference Dafinger and Pelican2006: 164–88). While Mbororo are known for their lack of collective historical consciousness (Boutrais Reference Boutrais1995/6: 43, 65), the Sabga community has produced a written codification of its history that is structured on similar lines to the historical accounts of Grassfields chiefdoms.

Above all, Mbororo are concerned with their entitlement to grazing land, as competition has increased with growing population density (both in humans and animals). While a few long-established and influential individuals have acquired land titles, the majority rely on the goodwill of local administrators and Grassfields chiefs. Such informal arrangements are vulnerable, of course, to changing economic and political fortunes. To counter this situation, MBOSCUDA has organized workshops to alert Mbororo, Grassfielders and administrators to the rights of Mbororo citizens (Pelican Reference Dafinger and Pelican2006: 233–41). Furthermore, the association has offered legal advice in land disputes. However, as MBOSCUDA officials acknowledge, there is no generally applicable and easy solution to farmer–herder conflicts and land disputes.

MBOSCUDA has also been instrumental in redefining Mbororo national citizenship. Alongside collaborating with international development agencies, it has created links with transnational human and minority rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Survival International, Minority Rights Group International, and the World Intellectual Property Organization.Footnote ¹¹ This international backing proved vital in contesting human rights abuses committed by state agents against Mbororo individuals.¹²

Furthermore, in line with the proclamation of the decade of ‘indigenous peoples’ (1995–2004) by the United Nations, MBOSCUDA promoted the Mbororo as an ‘indigenous minority’ whose cultural survival had to be protected.Footnote ¹³ Consequently, MBOSCUDA officials were enrolled to participate in government programmes for the development of indigenous and autochthonous peoples in Cameroon.Footnote ¹⁴ The United Nations and the International Labour Organization officially recognized the Mbororo alongside the Baka, Bakola, Bagyeli and Bedzang (commonly regarded as ‘Pygmies’) as ‘indigenous peoples’. In 2005 MBOSCUDA was granted special consultative status by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

In analysing these recent developments two questions emerge: what does it mean if the Mbororo are classified as an ‘indigenous people’ alongside the ethnic groups of Baka, Bakola, Bagyeli and Bedzang? And what practical implications do these developments have for the Mbororo and MBOSCUDA?

As Hodgson (2000) and Kuper (2003) have pointed out, the term ‘indigenous peoples’ is decidedly a political notion that may refer to different things in different locations. While in North, Central and South America indigenous activism has a long history and the status of ‘first peoples’ is generally uncontested, the situation in Africa is different. Here it is much more problematic and controversial to define which groups may count as ‘indigenous’, as there are long and ongoing histories of migration, assimilation and conquest. This difficulty is also reflected in current working definitions of ‘indigenous peoples’ as applied by the International Labour Organization and the United Nations, which emphasize self-identification as a fundamental criterion (Hodgson Reference Hodgson2000; Tchoumba 2006).

Many African states have been opposed to the concept of ‘indigenous peoples’ and their entitlement to land and resources, arguing that all Africans are ‘indigenous’ and should have equal access to natural resources (Lutz Reference Lutz2007). Cameroon is one of the few African countries that has adopted the notion of ‘indigenous peoples’ in its National Constitution, though without providing clear definitions. In a recent report for the International Labour Organization, Tchoumba (2006) summarizes the situation as follows:

Tchoumba gives a long list of criteria that classify the Mbororo and the ‘Pygmies’ as ‘indigenous peoples’. It strikes me, however, that the two groups fall into the category of pastoralists and hunter-gatherers respectively. Here we may consider Kuper's (2003: 389–90) argument that the United Nations has tended to give precedence to hunters and nomadic herders, viewing them as representatives of the original human populations of the world. This renders the case of the Mbororo somewhat ambiguous. The Grassfields Mbororo are not nomadic herders but largely sedentary agro-pastoralists. Ironically, their assumed nomadic lifestyle may be less ‘endangered’ by national policies than by their desire for a settled and more comfortable life.

Another issue is their alignment with the ‘Pygmies’: in other words, for Mbororo the question of ‘belonging’ also emerges with regard to ‘indigenous peoples’. The Fulbe (including the Mbororo) are renowned as a proud and exclusive people who tend to look down on other ethnic groups (Burnham Reference Burnham, Baxter and Sansom1972). This may apply to the Mbororo in the Grassfields to a lesser degree than to Fulbe in northern Cameroon. Nonetheless it was foreseeable that their ethnic pride may overshadow their collaboration with the ‘Pygmies’, who are generally ranked lowest on an ethnic scale. Accordingly, when Village AiD proposed to extend its civil awareness programme to include both Mbororo and ‘Pygmies’, they were confronted with outright rejection by some MBOSCUDA officials – a development also related to increasing divisions within the association. The planned project had to be abandoned.¹⁵

This leads us to the second question concerning the practical implications of the Mbororo's recognition as an ‘indigenous people’. So far, this political status change has had no impact on the lives of ordinary Mbororo in the Grassfields. In effect, most Mbororo are not aware of their recognition as an ‘indigenous people’ and its potential implications. Conversely, some educated individuals and MBOSCUDA representatives have benefited considerably from opportunities for advanced training and international travel. For example, over the past four years MBOSCUDA's current provincial programme coordinator attended six international workshops in the United States, Britain, Tanzania and Nigeria, as well as three skill enhancement trainings in southern Cameroon. His wife attended a three-month Indigenous Fellowship Programme in Geneva organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.Footnote ¹⁶ Thus, the ‘indigenous peoples’ discourse benefits mainly the Mbororo elites.

Against the background of these emerging new opportunities, it is not surprising that there are indications of increasing rivalries and ruptures within MBOSCUDA. Furthermore, criticism has also been raised by Mbororo leaders who submitted a petition to the British High Commission, accusing Mbororo intellectuals of falsely portraying the Mbororo as an impoverished people, and of misappropriating international aid.¹⁷

Mbororo emotional attachment to the Grassfields

Besides political and economic objectives, Mbororo claims to regional citizenship and minority status also entail an emotional component. As compared to Grassfielders’ apparent emotionality regarding discourses on autochthony and belonging, Mbororo attachment to their home area is quite different in character and expression. While Grassfielders tend to be very passionate about issues of land, Mbororo are culturally restrained in expressing their feelings.Footnote ¹⁸ Furthermore, Grassfielders and Mbororo have different relationships to their settlement areas. For Grassfielders ‘the soil’ of the home region is an economic, political and, above all, a spiritual resource. It is the seat of the ancestors, and the place where one needs to be buried.Footnote ¹⁹ This religious dimension is absent in the Mbororo's attachment to the land, which is defined by the longevity of their stay and by ensuing economic and social ties.

In the course of their settlement in the Grassfields, many Mbororo have made considerable economic and social investments and, consequently, have developed an emotional attachment to their home area. As indicated above, they have built permanent compounds and invested in settling farms and the conservation of their grazing land. Furthermore, many Mbororo have established stable work and friendship relations with their Grassfields and Hausa neighbours (Pelican Reference Geschiere, Englund and Nyamnjoh2004). In particular, youths frequently entertain social relationships across ethnic boundaries, participating in sports activities and youth associations as well as socializing during festivities and nightly outings. Some Mbororo are in love relationships with Grassfields or Hausa partners, and a few are married to non-Mbororo spouses (Pelican Reference Dafinger and Pelican2006: 306–41).

Most Mbororo see themselves as Garafi (Pidgin English for Grassfielders) or ‘Grassfields Mbororo’. This feeling of belonging and commitment to their home area is expressed even more strongly among educated Mbororo – many of whom have benefited from the support of Grassfields acquaintances, as Mbororo parents have been reluctant to invest in their children's education. Similarly, MBOSCUDA officials from north-west Cameroon tend to ally with politicians and state agents originating from the Western Grassfields rather than with Fulbe from northern Cameroon.