State ineffectiveness in DRC

Rotberg (2003), explained what “failed states” mean, and he simply explained  it as a state that cannot provide positive political goods and services for its citizen and these political goods are obligations and expectations that entails political culture and social contract. Security is the most important political good, and its absence indicates state failure. State failure in DRC has been identified as one of its features since its establishment in 1885 as a modern state, from the time it was Congo Free State under Belgian King Leopold II to present day DRC under Kabila. Ineffectiveness of the structures of the state and the violence inflicted upon the people of DRC dates back to colonial period under the brutal rule of King Leopold II. King Leopold set foundation for the horrors that haunts modern day DRC, the country was used as an extraction field where mass violence and human rights violations was taken as an appropriate measure against the natives. According to Ntalaja (2011), politics in DRC have never risen above the image of plunder, use of force and disregard for human dignity be it under the rule of ruthless European King, a Congolese dictator of regional warlords.

DRC’s failure can be capture in four major steps and manifestations; first, under the name of Congo Free State, the country was a personal property of Belgian King Leopold, a property that was meant to generate revenue and benefit the King and Belgium. Slavery was used to extract resources, mainly rubber, and the state, the land was nothing more than an instrument of wealth generation and accumulation of wealth for the king and his beloved Belgium, leading to death of over 10 million native Congolese, causing an international outrage, (Ntalaja 2011). Secondly, following this international outrage, the country was given to Belgium as a colony from 1908-1960, even with the departure of King Leopold and formal administration of the colony by Belgium, Africans’ dignity and value as human-beings were undermined and they were prevented from democratic participation in the management of the country’s public affairs.
Thirdly, institutional decay, corruption and underdevelopment came to characterise the country under the dictator Mobutu who ruled from 1971-1997. Self declared king of Congo, he not only changed the country’s name to Zaire, but he also ruled it as his personal possession, a machine used for enrichment coupled with human rights violations and massive corruption. By concentrating power in the hands of the few corrupt officials loyal to him, professionalism was taken out of state structures like army and tribalism, and corruption flourished weakening the state, paving way for Rwanda and Uganda to invade, occupy, and plunder and in the process toppling the dictator himself. Fourthly, under Laurent Kabila, the country was informally under the control of the Ugandans and Rwandans. Furthermore, just like his predecessor, the new president conferred status on military heads and officials on unqualified individuals, and going as far as getting a Rwandese as chief of staff, showing the influence of Rwanda on the country. Just like Mobutu era, the security apparatus of the state disintegrated as it was run by unqualified, corrupt, tribalist individuals. He was later assassinated by his own bodyguard, (Ntalaja 2011). DR Congo, thus was a never a so-called normal functioning state. It was never capable of fulfilling its functions like any other states effectively. According to the Institute for State Effectiveness[1], the following are the major functions of an effective state:
·         Upholding rule of law
·         Monopoly of use of force
·         Control of public administration
·         Regulate and oversee market
·         Define social contract and run effective infrastructure

However, DRC fails in all of the above. This is a country that is listed as the second most failed state in the world by the fundforpeace.org, for the year 2012. The violence that characterises the state and the erosion of the state’s power and authority in the eastern provinces has not been turned around by the Joseph Kabila’s rule, just like his father before him, the country is in shambles.  He came to power promising to end political impasse in the country and implement Lusaka Agreement on ending war and promote dialogue in 1998, and as the war ended in 2003, security situation in eastern DRC did not change, (Ntalaja 2011).
Lack of control over market and territory by the government saw increase in lucrative trade in the minerals in the mining provinces of Kivus. This attracted militias, and with them came horrors of sexual violence and slavery inflicted on the population. While these militias like CNDP[2], FARDC, and FDLR are important actors in the conflict, the major problem resides in the weakness and incapacity of the state of DRC, it failed and continues to fail in maintaining a national army that is effective and capable of protecting the citizens against the militias, and instead its faced with mutinies, corruption in recruitment and finally poor leadership. Interestingly enough, the present day DRC army is predominantly made of former rebels. Ntalaja, (2011), points out that by recent incorporation of FARDC into the national army that is already composed of former rebels the government has established a precedent where they simply make peace by absorbing adventurous rebels. Additionally, he clarifies that this incorporation makes it hard to raise an effective and disciplined army especially if the top officials and officers are corrupt, incompetent and fails to pay them regularly.

The violence and continued conflict in DRC arose primarily from the failure to establish a functional stable state. Unlike Charles Tilly’s War-making and state-making’s central core arguments, the conflict in DRC is far from that, rather it resembles organised crime involving the entire central African states. The nine countries involved conspired in one way or another to plunder resources, and the most fascinating part was collaboration of private, public and military interest, Niemann (2005). Unlike European states that went through wars to emerge to what it is today, DRC and other former colonial states in Africa did not, the border were drawn by European and weak states were maintained and preserved because of international norms that grants and upholds juridical sovereignty. Thus, because of these norms of equality of all states and the right to preserve them, the future of DRC as a state capable of effectively controlling its territories, securing its citizens and commanding a disciplined army depends on how the international community will respond to the situation, through assistance as well as DRC’s elites and civil societies desire to leave behind divisive politics and work together.

Despite mineral abundance and reserve DRC has been characterised by vicious cycle of violence and underdevelopment that has seen the country ranked 186 out of 187 measured by United Nations Human Development Index. From modern day DRC to former governments under Mobutu, the state was seen as a wealth machine rather than a tool for the development and betterment of the society at large. And this has led to development of governance crisis as a lot is taken from the citizenry and little of services if provided in return. According o Ntalaja (2002), the origin of DRC’s parasitic like nature as a state is rooted in colonial history and it is a country under neo-colonial rule today.

Congo’s independence from Belgium might have rendered the country independent, free and sovereign, however according to the Kwame Nkurumah, a former Ghanaian president and one of the pioneers of neo-colonialism asserts that countries, especially former colonies are now under different form of colonialism; he offers a definition of the term, neo-colonialism as,
A State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside. (1965, pg 1)
In essence, Nkurumah argues that neo-colonisation is where a former colony which gained its independence is exploited politically and economically, it is a form of indirect colonisation. An internationally recognised independent state is controlled in such a way that it changes policies governing social, political and economic lives of its peoples so that it can be conducive to exploitation of its resources for profit by Multi-national companies or other states for that matter. 


References:
Vlassenroot & Huggins, (2005).  Land, migration and conflict in eastern DRC. URL: http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/Books/GroundUp/4Land.pdf
G, Prunier, (2008). Africa’s World War: Congo, the Rwandan genocide and the making of continental catastrophe. Oxford: Oxford University press
G,N,Natalaja, (2002). The Congo from Leopold to Kabila: A people’s history. New York: Zed books.
Human Rights Watch (March/1/2001). Uganda in Eastern DRC: Fueling Political and Ethnic Strife, A1302, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6a87e8.html  [accessed 28 December 2012]
P, Clark (2012). UK Aid to Rwanda:  International Development Committee. University of London.URL:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmintdev/726/726vw12.htm [Accessed 25/12/2012]
D, Beswick (2012). Unpacking Rwanda’s involvement in DR Congo and the international response. E-International relations: URL: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/12/19/unpacking-rwandas-involvement-in-dr-congo-and-the-international-response/ [accessed 27/12/2012]
G, N, Ntalaja, (Autumn 2004). The International Dimensions of the Congo CrisisGlobal Dialogue, Vol. 6, No. 3-4.  pp. 116-126. URL; http://www.worlddialogue.org/print.php?id=319 [accessed 22/12/2012]
R,Rotberg (2003). When States Fail: Causes and Consequences. princeton
[2] CNDP, is Rwanda backed militia: Congres National pour la Defense du Peuple, FDLR, on the other hand is a Hutu extremist group:Front Democratique pour la Liberation du Rwanda and finally FARDC
: Forces Armees de la Republique DEmocratique du Congo.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Analysis of London conference on Somalia

Perspectives: Why has Africa grown slowly?