COMMENTARY: The Issue is Not Biya’s Long Stay in Power But His Inability to Deliver

By Hans Ngala

Biya’s supporters and defenders are quick to point out that his long stay in power is “the people’s choice”. But perhaps we could question which people these are, to begin with. Does the CPDM now speak for all Cameroonians? Or the CPDM is now the majority of Cameroonians. Anyway, these are discussions for another day.
The focus of my critique is, however, on this mundane defense of Biya’s lifelong rule. The man is in his ripe old age, and for us to expect that he will suddenly start performing wonders is a foolhardy expectation. The issue is not so much that Biya has been in power too long as it is the fact that he has been unable to deliver in those years.
A recent World Bank report stated that 6.9 million Cameroonians live below the poverty line. This means these are people earning less than 500,000 Frs annually in Cameroon, while Biya lives in opulence. Cameroonian hospitals lack the required number of medical specialists or equipment, and most complex medical procedures often require medical evacuations, which most of these Cameroonians already living in poverty, cannot afford. All this, while Biya is fixated on signing his endless decrees and appointments.
Cameroonian universities, which are supposed to be hubs of innovation and solutions-driven centers, have been captured by Biya, who appoints, maybe not the best, but often those who are loyal to him. The result is an educational system that evades critical thinking, fails to question even Biya’s legacy, and churns out hundreds of jobless graduates. In their desperation, these graduates have to resort to praise-singing, instead of realizing that their problems are partly a result of a highly centralized system that pegs everything to Biya himself, resulting in bottlenecks and inefficiencies at almost every level of Cameroonian life.
If Biya had been in power these past 42 years and the average Cameroonian could still live a decent life, pay their rents, support their family, buy the things they need and want while being able to save reasonably and have medical insurance, Biya’s lifelong rule would have made sense. However, having clung to power eternally and twisted the constitution to further cement his stay in power with minimal results, this is rather troubling.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was in power for a long time, but at least the average Libyan’s life was decent. The country had oil wealth, and university education was free, but then Obama bombed his country in 2011 and killed Gaddafi.
Paul Kagame of Rwanda has been in office for over 20 years, but Kigali is considered the cleanest city in Africa by some measures. Rwanda is continentally renowned for its robotic and technological innovations under programs which Kagame has overseen. So his long rule has translated to meaningful change.
Then there is Paul Biya, whose long rule has seen Cameroon top the charts of “the world’s most neglected displacement crisis” – thrice. His rule saw Cameroon top the list as “the world’s most corrupt country” for two consecutive years in 1998 and 1999.
So when Biya’s longevity in power is brought into question, observers are not just looking at his long stay in power alone, but at how much he has been able to do in those years. This is not to say that nothing has changed under him. Certainly, there have been some gains, but the Cameroon of the 2020s is light years away from the Cameroon that Biya took over in 1982. In 1982, there was no internet and cellphones, for example, which is why Biya was able to survive a coup attempt around that period when coup plotters took over the national radio service and attempted to broadcast their coup to the world. Had there been WhatsApp and social media like there are today, only God knows how that would have turned out.
Also, the economy is no longer just an oil-based economy and needs to be diversified. Biya has largely been unable to do this, with his sole form of job creation being intermittent mass recruitments into the civil service or military, which he announces by his habitual decrees. Recruitments alone cannot solve unemployment. Critical sectors like health, aviation, scientific research, and newer ones like artificial intelligence have to be massively funded as the world’s economy relies on these. But Biya is still stuck in the Cameroon of the 1980s, where problems could simply be solved with appointments when the population was comparatively smaller.
It is clear that the heart of the issue with Paul Biya’s leadership is not merely the length of his tenure, but his failure to adapt to the demands of a rapidly evolving world and deliver meaningful progress. Governance in the 21st century demands agility, innovation, and accountability—qualities that have been glaringly absent in Biya’s administration. Cameroonians are not asking for miracles; they are asking for the basics—quality healthcare, job opportunities, functioning infrastructure, and a leadership that listens and evolves with its people.
The reality is that 42 years is enough time to turn a struggling country around. Yet, many Cameroonians today live with less hope, fewer opportunities, and lower living standards than their parents did. The system has calcified under Biya’s rule, with everything funneled through Yaoundé and power concentrated in the hands of a few. This over-centralization has stifled growth and innovation and fostered a culture of dependence rather than initiative.
In 2025, Cameroonians will not judge Biya simply for being in power since 1982. They are judging him for how little has come out of those years—how little he has done to prepare the country for a future that is already here. The world is not waiting for Cameroon to catch up. Biya has had his time. The real question now is: will Cameroon continue down this path of inertia, or will it finally choose leadership that reflects the urgency of the times and the aspirations of its people? That is the reckoning we face.