This paper looks at the notion of the resilience and survival of traditional authorities both in the colonial and post-colonial periods in Cameroon. The question of how traditional authorities derive their power is central in this paper. In more specific terms, the challenge is to explain how, regardless of their collaborative role during the colonial periods, traditional authorities continue to survive into and play some role in the post-colonial African states. The issue is whether the continued existence of traditional authorities reflects their legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects, or whether it is a result of other factors, including, as is argued in the paper, their role as custodian of tradition including control over land allocation. I argue that the construct and interpretation of legitimacy in Kom and Bali is significantly different and that though both communities draw on tradition for their authority, the kom people turn to lean more on cultural attributes for their legitimacy which they see as incompatible with modern state politics. Kom therefore advocates more of political neutrality for traditional leaders. In Bali on the other hand, traditional leaders can use their active political participation with the state to achieve legitimacy even if this is sometimes contested by the people. This paper concludes on the note that although traditional leaders could play an active role in national politics and still retain their local prowess to adjudicate on local conflicts, this is largely possible only if traditional leaders enter the political scene as neutral mediators. Where this is not the case, the legitimacy of traditional authorities become very fluid and pinned to their role as development providers and less on the ‘traditional’ which they represent. This paper is part of my PhD research which was carried out using a qualitative approach. This research was carried out in Cameroon between February 2015 and September of 2015 where I spent eight Months in the field for data collection. The study participants included both male and females although certain categories (like traditional rulers) were predominantly men. This was for the sole reason that these societies are patriarchal and exclude women from assuming leadership roles. Data from the participants was collected using individual in-depth interviews, FGDs and notes from my own personal observations in the field. Theoretically, this paper contributes to the ongoing debate on how non-state actors like traditional authorities negotiate and construct legitimacy at the local level. The paper critically engages with the works of scholars like Maloka (1995), Mamdani (1996), Ntsebeza (2005), Beoge et al. (2009), Richmond (2010), Raeymeakers (2010) Moe (2011) and Menkhaus( 2007)