Contextualizing The Question
The future for the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite recent developments in its complex crisis, is a better future more than pessimistic realism would suggests. Persisting conflict is compelling to overcome stereotypes in the situation’s analysis, a fact that is broadening slowly the number of people willing to get involved for the right reasons. There is an unprecedented inclusive participation of the International Community where there used to be only a few European diplomats and businessmen dealing directly with the highest levels of a dictatorial leadership. Since the mid 1990s, foreign analysts and policy advisors have produced all kinds of assessment over the situation. They keep announcing an imminent collapse. Envisioning a better future should start from an approach that goes beyond a recurring flawed logic applied to the DRC in two aspects: the perception of the country’s problems in their causes and the country’s leadership endemic resistance to seize the opportunities of changing times.
First, it is useful to deal with the remote cause of the crisis, which is not exclusive to the DRC. Principally it is the nature of the postcolonial State, which led to generalized failure. The biggest obstacles to peace and sustainable development (corruption at all levels of governance and armed conflicts) are both consequences of the State’s failure. External interference (colonial policy, cold war policy and shifting sands of new geopolitics after the fall of the Berlin wall, increasing role of inefficient UN resolutions), economic hopelessness and ethnic violence can be traced back to this same political origin as its different dimensions.
Secondly, it is convenient to look into the interlocking immediate causes that led to the current crisis. They can be found in the flaws of the Sun City’s agreement in 2003. This agreement is directly related to three major issues to be kept in mind while assessing DRC problems. Those three issues are, in turn, directly connected to the actual features of the Congolese dysfunctional order: a) the transitional institutions; b) the so called democratization brought about by the adoption of a new constitution in February 2006 and the presidential and parliamentary elections; and c) the armed conflict in the Eastern part of the country.
Thirdly, it is helpful to show what can be seen as flawed logic in the perception of the crisis. In the name of preserving the legitimacy of the new institutions, the complex causes of crisis have become increasingly reduced to only one factor as it appear in International NGOs reports, Foreign diplomats and UN official declarations, and those of the Congolese government. According to this flawed logic, the DRC problem is a security problem posed by a surprisingly disciplined rebellion in the East. Neighboring countries, particularly Rwanda and Uganda are usually blamed by the Kinshasa leadership and their foreign supporters, stirring up endemic hatred among the people, and poisoning regional diplomatic relations. The irresponsible sweeping characterization of Laurent Nkunda and his CNDP, for example, has gone as far as establishing a moral equivalence of the movement with the Rwandan genocidaire forces still active in the Kivus and other parts of the country. This perception contributes heavily to silencing anyone questioning Kinshasa’s lack of political will in dealing with so many, grave and dangerous other threats against security, stability, and development. Showing such misrepresentation implies also elaborating on the role of foreign political partners (UN, EU, et al.) and their impact both on the crisis and its possible solution.
Understanding these different causes is a must to understanding the problem, and hence, the way forward to sustainable peace, a sine qua non condition for sustainable development. A misconception of these same causes, even from well wishing analysts, politicians and diplomats has fueled the crisis or offered very slim margins for sustainable solutions. The way to sustainable development must first acknowledge the failure of mechanisms used in the past, even in recent past. The end, the means and also the method sought indicate the order of priorities: there cannot be economic reforms at large scale without political reforms and precise ones at every level of the society. And there cannot be entrepreneurial development if there is no peace.
Lastly, it could be interesting to elaborate on development opportunities for the DRC in the global context, as another means to sustainable peace. Indeed, effort in business development and opportunities must be one of the most effective incentives to promote peace. I would suggest that there is an urgent need for bold policy and programmes specifically in the fields of the political form of governance, education, infrastructure and industrialization. Development will be achieved by creating an environment for private enterprise, which requires positive political will capable of generating, for business people and foreign investors, trust. Areas of possible development of private enterprise are suggested taking into account: a) the context of a country that has never been well administered territorially; b) the lack of training due to a long term dysfonctionning educational system; c) the enormous potential of the country, at small scale and large scale, including relations with economic powers and multinationals.
The future for the Democratic Republic of Congo, despite recent developments in its complex crisis, is a better future more than pessimistic realism would suggests. Persisting conflict is compelling to overcome stereotypes in the situation’s analysis, a fact that is broadening slowly the number of people willing to get involved for the right reasons. There is an unprecedented inclusive participation of the International Community where there used to be only a few European diplomats and businessmen dealing directly with the highest levels of a dictatorial leadership. Since the mid 1990s, foreign analysts and policy advisors have produced all kinds of assessment over the situation. They keep announcing an imminent collapse. Envisioning a better future should start from an approach that goes beyond a recurring flawed logic applied to the DRC in two aspects: the perception of the country’s problems in their causes and the country’s leadership endemic resistance to seize the opportunities of changing times.
First, it is useful to deal with the remote cause of the crisis, which is not exclusive to the DRC. Principally it is the nature of the postcolonial State, which led to generalized failure. The biggest obstacles to peace and sustainable development (corruption at all levels of governance and armed conflicts) are both consequences of the State’s failure. External interference (colonial policy, cold war policy and shifting sands of new geopolitics after the fall of the Berlin wall, increasing role of inefficient UN resolutions), economic hopelessness and ethnic violence can be traced back to this same political origin as its different dimensions.
Secondly, it is convenient to look into the interlocking immediate causes that led to the current crisis. They can be found in the flaws of the Sun City’s agreement in 2003. This agreement is directly related to three major issues to be kept in mind while assessing DRC problems. Those three issues are, in turn, directly connected to the actual features of the Congolese dysfunctional order: a) the transitional institutions; b) the so called democratization brought about by the adoption of a new constitution in February 2006 and the presidential and parliamentary elections; and c) the armed conflict in the Eastern part of the country.
Thirdly, it is helpful to show what can be seen as flawed logic in the perception of the crisis. In the name of preserving the legitimacy of the new institutions, the complex causes of crisis have become increasingly reduced to only one factor as it appear in International NGOs reports, Foreign diplomats and UN official declarations, and those of the Congolese government. According to this flawed logic, the DRC problem is a security problem posed by a surprisingly disciplined rebellion in the East. Neighboring countries, particularly Rwanda and Uganda are usually blamed by the Kinshasa leadership and their foreign supporters, stirring up endemic hatred among the people, and poisoning regional diplomatic relations. The irresponsible sweeping characterization of Laurent Nkunda and his CNDP, for example, has gone as far as establishing a moral equivalence of the movement with the Rwandan genocidaire forces still active in the Kivus and other parts of the country. This perception contributes heavily to silencing anyone questioning Kinshasa’s lack of political will in dealing with so many, grave and dangerous other threats against security, stability, and development. Showing such misrepresentation implies also elaborating on the role of foreign political partners (UN, EU, et al.) and their impact both on the crisis and its possible solution.
Understanding these different causes is a must to understanding the problem, and hence, the way forward to sustainable peace, a sine qua non condition for sustainable development. A misconception of these same causes, even from well wishing analysts, politicians and diplomats has fueled the crisis or offered very slim margins for sustainable solutions. The way to sustainable development must first acknowledge the failure of mechanisms used in the past, even in recent past. The end, the means and also the method sought indicate the order of priorities: there cannot be economic reforms at large scale without political reforms and precise ones at every level of the society. And there cannot be entrepreneurial development if there is no peace.
Lastly, it could be interesting to elaborate on development opportunities for the DRC in the global context, as another means to sustainable peace. Indeed, effort in business development and opportunities must be one of the most effective incentives to promote peace. I would suggest that there is an urgent need for bold policy and programmes specifically in the fields of the political form of governance, education, infrastructure and industrialization. Development will be achieved by creating an environment for private enterprise, which requires positive political will capable of generating, for business people and foreign investors, trust. Areas of possible development of private enterprise are suggested taking into account: a) the context of a country that has never been well administered territorially; b) the lack of training due to a long term dysfonctionning educational system; c) the enormous potential of the country, at small scale and large scale, including relations with economic powers and multinationals.
