The Democratic Republic of Congo (or DR Congo) is the king of records in this region. I am not, though, suggesting that it is an enviable distinction. The eastern part of the country boasts of the most armed groups anywhere in the world. It is not easy to know the exact count, but they are several hundreds. It has the most foreign troops and fighters, some of them uninvited, others hired, or on a bilaterally agreed mission, and the largest, most expensive and ineffective United Nations peace-keeping operation in the world. It is a richly naturally endowed country, yet with the poorest citizens. But that does not stop them from bragging about its abundant mineral wealth. Never mind that they do not seem to have benefitted from this bounty. According to them, the whole world, and especially neighbours, are jealous and constantly scheme to lay their hands on these riches. The foreign media, too, never cease to sing about this fabled wealth and offer it as the explanation for all the country’s ills. An impressive list, but not terribly helpful or one to be proud of, actually to be ashamed of. But apparently not the Congolese authorities. President Felix Tshisekedi seems intent on adding to the records. A week or so ago, he persuaded his colleagues in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) to send troops to the eastern provinces of his country to help him restore peace and security to the area, but in reality to fight and defeat the M23 rebels. Very soon, SADC troops will join [(or replace East African Community Regional Force (EACRF)], MONUSCO, FARDC the national army and its myriad militia allies, including the genocidal FDLR, other forces from the region on bilateral arrangements with DR Congo, and a host of other forces, making the region the most militarised in Africa. One must inevitably ask several questions. Are the leaders of SADC really convinced that sending more troops to an area already burdened with many more will restore peace and security there? Do they believe that force alone can resolve the issues? Haven’t they examined the record of the forces that have been operating there or that of the Congolese government and drawn from them some useful conclusions? It is difficult to imagine that they are going there blindly or because of the irresistible persuasive powers of President Tshisekedi. Leaders are known to weigh their options carefully before they act. They act on facts and information, not on impulse. They make their judgement on the basis of all that. That is why we elect them. We know they will take care of our interests and not lead us into some misadvised adventures. Most of them perform as expected. But there are a few who do not. Either they suffer from a severe case of judgement deficiency or they have a huge ego and personal interests to match that obviously excludes concern for their citizens. DR Congo has, unfortunately, been blighted by more than its fair share of this type of leaders. Clearly, both the Congolese authorities and some foreign countries prescribe remedies that have failed to cure the ailment they were supposed to heal. Why do they persist in doing so? One possible reason is a misreading – deliberate or genuine – of what the real issues on the ground in DR Congo are. They fail or refuse to see the problems as essentially political. Successive Congolese authorities, no doubt, have had a hand in this. Another is the incompetence of Congolese authorities since independence. They have never been able to deal with domestic problems on their own or even admitted that the problems were internal. Instead they always point a finger at some external meddlers. And so they have always relied on outside intervention, usually force, to resolve them. The scapegoating we see today is not new. It seems ingrained in Congolese leaders. Equally not new is the fact that these problems have always resurfaced. All this is evidence of a crisis of belief in their own abilities to manage the state in general and challenging situations in particular. The crisis seems to extend to ordinary citizens. Then there is the notion that DR Congo is a very important, strategic country. There are two contradictory views on this. One, perhaps fed by greed or other forms of self-interest, is that DR Congo is so vital and must be protected at all costs. The excesses and inefficiencies of its leaders can therefore safely be overlooked. Mobutu Sese Seko expertly manipulated this position to keep himself in power as an indispensable ally of the west to keep the Congo in their camp and away from the Soviets during the cold war. The other view is that DR Congo should remain chaotic to enable easier exploitation of its fabled minerals. Finally, some of the decisions by foreign countries seem to be driven by a strong dislike for Rwanda. Probably for a number of reasons. Some see Rwanda as a rival power in the region. Others, used to disorder, see its disciplined management of the state and its resources as an obstacle to their own schemes if others emulate it. And many more. All this, however, obscures the real issues that have bedevilled DR Congo since its creation by the Belgian King Leopold II. One is governance. If the Congolese need any help, it should be to build a functioning state that extends its authority over its entire territory. But that can only be helpful if there is the will from within. Force will certainly not resolve the dire governance deficiencies. A second, and very important question, is that of citizenship of Rwandophone Congolese which, for unclear reasons, is always contested. It is a fact that these people were on the territory that came to be known as Congo long before that happened. Their presence in what is DR Congo today therefore predates the existence of that country. They have as much right as any other nationality that found itself in the entity that became the Congo. There also seems to be a question of nationhood. The country is a collection of different nationalities with hardly any bond except being on the territory called DR Congo. They are more apart than united. Even where the feeling of apartness has not come to the fore as it has done several times in Katanga, it will grow stronger if the issues of governance, nationality, and nationhood are not addressed urgently. There is enough on President Tshisekedi’s plate to keep him fully occupied. That he finds the time to run to different capitals seeking help that will not change anything is perhaps evidence that he is either not up to the task or he is simply overwhelmed by it. That is a small matter the Congolese can sort out.
