I. Presentation of the GPE and Foundations of the Evaluation Methodology

A. The Economic Policy Management Programme (EPM)

The evaluation of presidential programs for the 2025 election in Cameroon was carried out by the Economic Policy Management Program (GPE) of the University of Yaoundé II, under the administrative coordination of Professor Viviane ONDOUA BIWOLE, Director of the GPE, and the scientific and academic supervision of Professor BEKOLO EBE Bruno. The study is in the tradition of analytical work aimed at providing citizens with the means to assess the proposals made to them in order to make a responsible choice.

The main objective of this analysis is to evaluate the economic programs of the twelve candidates (only ten of which were fully analyzed due to difficulties in accessing information for the UNDP and the UDC), comparing them based on fundamental elements such as relevance to national needs, feasibility considering constraints, and their credibility in terms of implementation capacity.

B. Methodology and Analysis Grid

The approach is based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a recognized approach for evaluating complex decisions involving multiple objectives. Each concrete proposal, grouped by sectors of economic and social life, was evaluated according to five criteria, each scored from 0 to 4:

1. Relevance (adequacy with needs, alignment with the SND30).
2. Feasibility (probability of implementation considering the budgetary and institutional context).
3. Impact (expected effects on growth, employment, and well-being).
4. Capacity (existence of human, technical, and institutional resources).
5. Experience (lifespan of the party and political experience of the leader).

The overall score is the sum of the scores obtained on these five criteria, with equal weighting for each, in order to maintain the simplicity and transparency of the evaluation.

II. Thematic Sectoral Analysis: Coverage of National Challenges

The analysis of the programs is structured around six major sectors, highlighting notable differences in the coverage and credibility of sectoral proposals.

III. Candidates, Scores, and Analysis of Overall Strengths and Weaknesses

A. The Candidates and their Overall Scores

The evaluation clearly distinguishes three groups of candidates, illustrating a marked heterogeneity in the structuring and credibility of the programs:

• Group 1 (Upper intermediate scores, 11-16): The RDPC (13.05) and the SDF (11.67) stand out due to the robustness of their structure and the better integration of economic and institutional constraints.
• Group 2 (Lower intermediate scores, 8-11): Includes the PAL (10.40), the PCRN (10.05), the FDC (9.97), the PURS (8.80), and the MCNC (8.54).
• Group 3 (Low scores, < 8): The FSNC (7.78) and UNIVERS (6.58), whose proposals are deemed absent, unquantified, or unrealistic.

B. Analysis of Overall Strengths and Weaknesses

1. Strengths of the Leaders (RDPC and SDF)

The RDPC is characterized by a balanced and consistent performance across most sectors evaluated (scores systematically higher than 11). Its program benefits from an in-depth knowledge of the State apparatus and macroeconomic balances, and privileged access to multi-faceted expertise (IMF, World Bank, etc.), which is a significant advantage that its competitors do not possess.

The SDF distinguishes itself through a solid understanding of growth challenges and excels in the areas of governance and institutions (score of 15.60) as well as social issues.

2. Structural Weaknesses: Macroeconomics and Implementation Capacity

The study reveals significant shortcomings for candidates in Groups 2 and 3, particularly concerning macroeconomic credibility and institutional feasibility (implementation capacity).

Insufficient Macroeconomic Integration: The macroeconomic and financial aspect represents a generalized weakness for the majority of the programs.

• Low Consideration for Stability: Several parties (MCNC, UNIVERS) obtain low scores in the macroeconomic situation (7.17 and 3.17 respectively), reflecting limited, unquantified proposals or proposals insufficiently linked to macroeconomic realities.
• Unsupported Assumptions: The programs of Groups 2 and 3 often rely on optimistic, unsupported growth assumptions or omit crucial details on how to generate the revenues needed to finance the objectives.
• Lack of Coherent Vision: Few political groups manage to propose a truly global and coherent vision, capable of simultaneously integrating the imperatives of macroeconomic stability, productive transformation, environmental sustainability, and good governance.
• Vague Financial Sustainability: The analysis of public finances reveals that even if proposals exist, they often lack the necessary rigor. For example, UNIVERS obtains a low score (6.00) on public finances, reflecting a limited presence of detailed or planned proposals. All ambitions must, however, be compatible with budgetary constraints (public debt, expenditure rigidity).

Deficit in Capacity and Feasibility (Implementation): Capacity (existence of human, technical, and institutional resources) and feasibility (probability of implementation) constitute crucial weaknesses, particularly for Groups 2 and 3:

• Quantification and Budgetary Precision: The lower intermediate programs (Group 2) suffer from insufficiencies in the precision of financing mechanisms, quantification, or underestimation of budgetary constraints. Parties like the FDC have a relevant strategic vision, but a less detailed implementation timeline or an underestimation of constraints.
• Realism regarding State Capacities: The low scores of Group 3 are explained by proposals deemed unrealistic considering the capacities of the State. The feasibility criterion is often judged weak or very weak for these proposals, due to a lack of funding sources or a precise timeline.
• Governance and Institutional Framework: The effectiveness of institutions and the quality of governance substantially affect the application and optimization of public policies. The majority of candidates insufficiently address administrative modernization and the fight against corruption, yet these reforms are imperative to ensure the feasibility of public policies. The unfavorable business climate (166th worldwide) is an indicator of the institutional and bureaucratic weakness that the programs must overcome.

IV. Perspective and Conclusion (Outlook)

The evaluation reveals a considerable credibility gap between the programs, ranging from single to double scores, highlighting highly variable capacities to structure a solid economic project.

The Imperatives for Sustainable Transformation

To initiate sustainable transformation, the study suggests that candidates strengthen the coherence and precision of their commitments by formulating quantified proposals supported by realistic timelines. Success depends on a synthesis of approaches combining budgetary rigor, ambitious social policies, and productive transformation supported by innovation.

Priorities to ensure the feasibility of public policies include:

1. Strengthening environmental sustainability, which is largely absent from the debates.
2. The central role of institutional reforms and the fight against corruption.
3. Maintaining human capital development as an absolute priority.

Potential for a GPE Research Program

The GPE study highlighted persistent programmatic gray areas, notably the absence or inadequate treatment of key subjects (such as energy transition, Universal Health Coverage (CSU), and administrative modernization). Furthermore, the results underscore methodological shortcomings among many parties concerning the macroeconomic aspect and institutional feasibility (the « Capacity » criterion).

It would be relevant for the Economic Policy Management Program (GPE) to launch an in-depth research program aimed at analyzing and developing solutions for these structural weaknesses. This program could focus on:

• Analysis of the Macro-Financial Sustainability of Ambitious Programs: Rigorously studying how candidates could finance their social and productive objectives without compromising macroeconomic stability, considering budgetary constraints (debt, RAP) and the low diversification of the Cameroonian economy.
• Development of Capacity and Governance Indicators (Implementation Capacity): Deepening the analysis of the « Feasibility » and « Capacity » criteria to better evaluate and equip political parties in structuring their programs. This would allow for the quantification of institutional costs and the identification of necessary prerequisites for the effective implementation of reforms (fight against bureaucracy, administrative efficiency).

This program would allow for the extension of the GPE’s educational analysis and consolidate the reliability of future public policy evaluations, thereby contributing to advancing the quality of democratic debate in Cameroon.