ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated unprecedented measures by the Cameroon government, causing significant disruptions during what were previously stable times. A lack of empirical research on how the public perceives the government’s response to the virus makes it challenging to determine whether the public supports and cooperates with the government to contain the virus or if they resist and disregard the government’s preventive measures. This study aims to evaluate the government’s response to emergency crises, with a specific focus on the COVID-19 pandemic in the Southwest Region of Cameroon.

To conduct this research, primary data, primarily collected through questionnaires, and secondary data obtained through a review of relevant literature, were employed. The research utilized a quantitative research methodology. The study offers empirical insights into the effectiveness of government measures to combat COVID-19 in the Southwest Region while also identifying the challenges faced. It concludes by providing recommendations to address these challenges. The research acknowledges the role of the Cameroon government in responding to COVID-19 and offers guidance on overcoming the obstacles encountered.

Chapter One

Introduction 1.1 Background of the Study The world is currently grappling with a pandemic, unlike anything experienced in human history, the COVID-19 crisis. The social and economic upheaval caused by COVID-19 is impacting families, communities, and nations globally. Government institutions play a pivotal role in responding to this crisis (The Independent Panel, 2021). During emergencies, governments assess the situation, formulate the best course of action, and allocate the necessary financial and technical resources to mitigate the impact of the emergency on the population. Depending on the type of emergency, governments establish inter-ministerial commissions to inform and educate the public about the emergency situation in the country. Unfortunately, the public seldom has the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of government response strategies in emergency situations, such as the COVID-19 outbreak.

In December 2019, the world witnessed the outbreak of a deadly disease known as COVID-19 in the city of Wuhan, China. According to Lu, Stratton, and Tang (2020), the world was shocked when a series of pneumonia cases of unknown origin emerged in Wuhan. Extensive investigations revealed that a novel virus was responsible for these pneumonia cases. The virus was officially named COVID-19 on February 11, 2020, by the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. UNICEF (2020) explains that “CO” stands for corona, “VI” for virus, and “D” for disease. The disease was initially called ‘2019 novel coronavirus’ or ‘2019-nCoV’ before being renamed COVID-19. COVID-19 symptoms include fever, cough, and shortness of breath, and in more severe cases, it can lead to pneumonia or breathing difficulties.

On January 13, 2020, Bangkok, Thailand, recorded the first confirmed case of COVID-19 outside of China (WHO, 2020a). By March 2, 2020, 67 territories outside China had reported 8,565 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 132 deaths, as well as significant community transmission occurring in several countries worldwide, including Iran and Italy (Hsu, Chia, & Lim, 2020). By March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic, with the number of affected countries rising to 114, over 118,000 cases, and more than 4,000 deaths (WHO, 2020b). The number of confirmed cases continues to increase worldwide, especially with the emergence of the highly transmissible Omicron variant (The Guardian, 2022). As of January 28, 2022, there have been 364,191,494 confirmed cases of COVID-19 globally, with 5,631,457 deaths (WHO, 2022).

In Africa, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 was reported on February 14, 2020. By May 13, cases had been reported in all 54 African countries. The African Union acted swiftly, endorsing a joint continental strategy in February. African Union Chairperson, President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, appointed four Special Envoys to mobilize international support for Africa’s efforts to address the economic fallout of COVID-19. The Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), established in 2017, worked in collaboration with the public-private AfroChampions initiative to equip African health systems with necessary infrastructure for treating COVID-19 patients and conducting COVID-19 tests. The initiative also provided socio-economic assistance to vulnerable populations in Africa. Most African countries enforced quarantines, lockdowns, and border closures to prevent the spread of the virus. The Africa Taskforce on Coronavirus Preparedness and Response (AFTCOR) was established as a continent-wide strategy for COVID-19. AFTCOR focused on screening at points of entry, infection prevention and control in healthcare facilities, clinical treatment of severe COVID-19 cases, risk communication, and more (Nkengasong & Mankoula, 2020).

Some African countries have adopted a middle-of-the-road approach to prevention, maintaining some level of economic activity. For instance, Ghana implemented a partial lockdown for a limited period and monitored people’s movements closely. Botswana aimed to boost the livelihoods of vulnerable households by purchasing food from local communities. South Africa rolled out mobile testing units to prevent the movement of potentially infected individuals. These mobile laboratories were deployed nationwide for large-scale screening. In Benin, the government embraced E-learning to limit overcrowding in public universities, while Nigeria’s Coalition against COVID-19 mobilized resources to support social protection and purchase COVID-19 kits. African civil society actors and the private sector formed partnerships to combat the disease. The African Influencers for Development initiative rallied professionals from various fields to fight the pandemic (United Nations, 2020; United Nations, 2020b).

Despite these measures, the number of COVID-19 cases is still on the rise in Cameroon. According to WHO (2022), Cameroon has reported 111,113 confirmed cases, 1,867 deaths, and 106,050 recoveries. The government received local and international support to combat the virus, but it appears that resources have been mismanaged by COVID-19 frontline authorities. Some ministers and secretary-generals were called in for questioning by the judiciary, but the report on the matter remains undisclosed. These issues have prompted the researcher to evaluate the government’s response to the pandemic.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Cameroonians appear to be disconnected from the evaluation of government activities during an emergency response. This attitude limits citizen involvement in participatory democracy. With the COVID-19 outbreak in Cameroon in March 2020, the government instituted and enforced numerous response strategies to mitigate the spread of the virus. However, the public has not had the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of these response strategies. This absence of an evaluation mechanism creates a divide between those who govern and the governed and may result in mismanagement of funds allocated to combat the spread of the virus.

Rights groups accused COVID-19 frontline authorities in Cameroon of embezzling $40 million donated by Cameroonians and illegally selling 4,000 bags of rice intended for COVID-19 patients (Kindzeka, 2020). The absence of COVID-19 preventive kits, along with water scarcity, was also reported. A patient at Messassi Government Hospital in Yaounde stated, “Most of the time you go there, and there is no water. You just find a bucket being placed there without any water in it, and at times you don’t even meet soap” (Kindzeka, 2020, p.1). These reports have raised the researcher’s curiosity to investigate the public’s appraisal of the government’s emergency response to COVID-19.

The absence of empirical literature on the public’s appraisal of the government’s response to the virus makes it difficult to determine whether the public appreciates and cooperates with the government in mitigating the spread of the virus or if the public is discontented and neglects the government’s preventive measures. A positive appraisal can motivate government agencies to intensify efforts in the fight against the virus, while a negative appraisal may prompt the government to reconsider its COVID-19 prevention strategies.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the government’s response strategies in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives include:

• To assess the effectiveness of government response strategies in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
• To identify the challenges faced in responding to COVID-19 in the Buea Municipality.
• To propose ways to enhance government’s response strategy against COVID-19.

1.4 Hypotheses

The study formulates the following hypotheses:

• Government’s response strategies in the fight against COVID-19 are ineffective.
• The implementation of COVID-19 response measures was hindered by significant challenges.
• Transparency in the communication of COVID-19 information will increase the public’s trust in government officials in the fight against COVID-19.

1.5 Justification/Significance of the Study

This study is significant as it addresses the effectiveness of government response strategies in mitigating the spread of COVID-19 in Cameroon, a topic that has not been extensively explored in previous studies. By evaluating the public’s appraisal of government emergency response, this study provides valuable insights into citizen-government interactions during a public health crisis. The findings can inform and motivate government agencies to adapt and improve their response strategies based on public feedback.

Furthermore, the study will help determine the extent to which the population in Buea Municipality is complying with government response strategies, including handwashing, mask-wearing, and social distancing. The study’s recommendations can guide government officials in refining their COVID-19 prevention measures and enhance public participation in the fight against the virus.

This research is also valuable for future researchers interested in conducting similar studies. It provides a foundation of secondary data that can be used for literature reviews and offers insights into research problems that can serve as the basis for additional investigations.

1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study

1.6.1 Scope of the Study

Geographically, the study focuses on Buea Municipality, a part of the Fako Division in the South West Region of Cameroon. Buea is the regional capital of the Southwest Region, situated on the eastern slope of Mount Cameroon, the highest mountain in West Africa and the 28th highest in Africa. The study’s geographical scope is specific to this region.

In terms of time, the research was conducted over seven months, from November 2022 to June 2023. During this period, the researcher engaged in scientific writing, data collection, and analysis.

Scientifically, the study centers on inhabitants of Buea Municipality who appraise the effectiveness of government emergency response in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. A sample of 59 inhabitants in Buea Municipality was included in the study.

1.6.2 Limitations of the Study

The study’s geographical scope is limited to Buea Municipality, which may not be fully representative of the entire country’s perspective. Also, the study involved a relatively small sample size of 59 inhabitants, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to the entire population.

Additionally, there might be issues with recall bias or social desirability bias in responses from participants, as the study relied on self-reported information. The effectiveness of government response strategies could be influenced by various factors beyond the scope of this study.

The study also encountered limitations related to the availability of data and resources. Some relevant information may not have been accessible or was restricted due to the ongoing pandemic, which may have impacted the comprehensiveness of the study.