N.B Views and opinions expressed in the article below are solely the owner’s and do not represent any organisation
By Aribino Nicholas
Trying to understand the anatomy of the conflict in the DRC is like asking blind people to define an elephant. The feedback that the blind people will get and share after their tactile experiences of the elephant would be diverse. Their phenomenological experiences of the elephant will depend on their sensory inputs and a common definition of an elephant may be too difficult to reach. The conflict in the DRC is a gargantuan problem that resembles an elephant before the blind people. It is the intent of this opinion piece to try to float the writer’s own understanding of the conflict in the DRC.
The DRC is a vast African country that is a former colony of Belgium. This country is filthy rich in terms of mineral wealth. The DRC is a multi-tribal society. Extant literature says that there are 250 linguistic groups in the DRC. From the foregoing, the unspoken message is that the DRC needs leadership teaming that can work towards the unification of its diverse citizenry. Governance in the DRC should be organised around the trinity of diversity, inclusion and equity, hence the need for boundary spanning or connective work between and among state and non-state actors, state security and human security, the legislature, judiciary and the executive. The instability in the DRC has been attributed to Rwanda as the monolith of the rebellious group, M23 and the Rwandan president has been labelled a gangster and a Putin of Africa by the apologists of the Kinshasa administration. The Rwandan president, Paul Kagame has on several occasions in response to the accusations made against him thrown back the kitchen sink to those leaders that have labelled him a trouble cause. Barbed comments have been exchanged between and among those who side with Kinshasa and those aligned to Kigali. President Kagame has stoutly argued that it is folly to associate him with the M23. Arguably, Paul Kagame attributes the emergence of the M23 to misgovernance in the DRC that is characterised by ethnic inequalities, unequal distribution of the national cake and presidentialism. Kagame argues that Rwanda and the DRC are both neighbours by history and geography because of colonialism that demarcated them. Pursuant to the historical and geographical polemic, Kagame argues that in both countries there are Hutus and Tutsis, and the government of the DRC is not treating the latter as legitimate citizens of the DRC and to him that has given birth to the M23.
Listening closely to Kagame, one gets a feeling that the problems besetting the DRC are both internal and external. They are internal in terms of a leadership crisis, and they are external in terms of the history of colonialism. Taking an extended look at the DRC, one finds that there are a lot of ungoverned spaces in this country (internal problem). Ungoverned spaces create a fertile ground for lawlessness and terrorism. There are areas in the DRC where you do not find any administrative footprint of the Kinshasa government. Over and above that, the DRC last had its population census in 1984. This is indeed poor governance, because without any disaggregated data of citizens in the DRC how does the government deploy resources across the country? The DRC government is not in touch with its own people in terms of service delivery and this, according to the Human Needs Theory is a recipe for conflict. Between 1998 and 2001, the DRC government operated without a national budget, everything was done according to presidential decrees. During this epoch (1998-2001) the president’s authority went unopposed, unchecked and unmonitored. Upon its independence in 1960, the DRC only had less than 10 university graduates implying that those entrusted with state power were ill-equipped to manage this vast country as they did not have the statecraft for governance. There is also stinking corruption in the DRC where you find a predatory state that thrives on a princeling system. It should be borne in mind that conflict is embedded in political, social and economic structures and these structures are manned by top-dogs that are responsible for the production and distribution of resources. The way these resources are distributed can either make or break a country. In the absence of redistributive justice, pockets of protestation are bound to emerge.
The DRC has plenty of mineral wealth but painstakingly it is one of the poorest countries under the sun. The mineral wealth which is said to be worth USD 24 trillion has attracted regional and international looters who go there in the name of peace making, peacebuilding and peacekeeping. At the time of writing this opinion piece there is a security traffic jam in the DRC which is meant to fight off M23. The million-dollar question is: Is military intervention the solution to this conflict? In any effort to bring about conflict resolution, it is important to inquire into the structural, behavioural and attitudinal conditions conducive to the conflict-this is indeed Kagame’s concern. Furthermore, there is a need to ask who the actors, spoilers and objects are in a conflict and the dynamics emerging from the conflict. There seems to be very little expenditure of effort in trying to understand the context of the fight in the DRC as seen by the recommendation for military intervention. Military intervention can just bring either negative or frozen peace, not positive peace. Good leaders should look for causes of war and conditions for achieving peace, rather than studying military strategies to win the war. Sun Tzu, a military thought leader also advises that a good war is won without going to war. To our African leaders that have met in the Eastern and Southern parts of Africa to resolve the DRC conflict, it is worth noting that weapons are instruments of ill-omen and that the structure of society results in conflict. Let these leaders from both geopolitical blocs advise and advise accordingly the government of the DRC to treat its citizens with respect and dignity. A country cannot successfully fend off conflict if its security and capacity are too weak to include all its citizens in its governance fabric.
In conclusion, state managers in Africa should learn to depersonalise state power so that when they meet to resolve conflicts in Africa, they can therefore be less statist and be more concerned about human security in their approach. AU and its subregional groupings should strengthen their early warning mechanisms to prevent these unnecessary wars and conflicts in Africa.
