Crisis of Legitimacy: How the Doha Agreement Challenges Kinshasa’s Claim to State Authority

As Kinshasa rushes to celebrate  with almost incantatory fervor  the declaration of the restoration of state authority across the entire Congolese territory, it becomes essential to look beyond headline announcements and examine, in all its complexity, the true meaning of the latest Declaration of Principles signed in Doha.

Behind the Congolese government’s soaring rhetoric lies a fundamentally distorted reading of the document  one that not only betrays the letter of the text but more importantly subverts its spirit.

A tweet from U.S. diplomat Amos J. Hochstein Boulos, couched in diplomatic language yet rich in subtext, deserves close scrutiny from anyone seeking to understand the true stance of the international community.

For although it avoids direct confrontation, the message is unmistakably clear for those able to read between the lines:     the restoration of state authority in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) must not, under any circumstances, be confused with the mere extension of the current regime’s grip on power    , nor should it be reduced to partisan interests of a government desperately seeking legitimacy.

In its highest sense, state authority refers to the emergence of a government that is     truly present across its territory      embodied by functioning institutions, effective public services, and an administrative apparatus genuinely serving the public good.

Such restoration cannot be measured by the grandeur of official speeches or symbolic displays of power, but rather by the state’s     tangible ability to provide security, dispense justice, and ensure access to healthcare, education, water, and energy    , while equitably responding to the population’s basic needs.

In other words, for state authority to be real, it must     translate into a better quality of life for the people    , not merely a political narrative of control. Only then can one speak not of a nominal or artificial restoration, but of a true rehabilitation of the state in service of its people.

Any honest and informed interpretation of Boulos’ message must not dilute its significance but embrace its essence, as it subtly yet seriously     highlights the growing divide between the demand for functional governance and the faltering leadership currently in place.

Far from endorsing the current regime, Boulos’ choice of words  “regardless of who the president, the administration, or the official is”  represents an     explicit depersonalization of power    , reducing the Congolese head of state to an interchangeable figure.

This carefully worded neutrality is, in fact, a discreet but unmistakable rebuke: by emphasizing that     territorial sovereignty must be exercised independently of whoever temporarily embodies the state    , Boulos implies that     Kinshasa’s chronic failure to govern its eastern provinces discredits its effective authority     and opens the door to     alternative governance structures    , including those de facto represented by politico-military actors like the AFC/M23.

A Clear-Eyed U.S. Diplomacy Facing a Regime Chasing Illusions   

The diplomatic process now built around the Washington and Doha agreements must be viewed in its broader context to fully grasp its implications. It did not emerge from any calculated initiative by the DRC but rather from a     misguided attempt by President Félix Tshisekedi     to trade the country’s natural resources for a military alliance with the United States.

This move, rooted in an illusion of leverage, collided with the cold realism of American diplomacy, which set forth a     non-negotiable prerequisite    : a sincere dialogue with Rwanda and with the Congo River Alliance/M23, a central actor in the Congolese political and military landscape.

Falsification as Strategy: When Kinshasa Turns Disinformation into Routine   

What is most striking is not merely the regime’s structural inability to meet the challenges of the moment, but     its relentless effort to distort diplomatic realities.

After misrepresenting the Washington Agreement as a triumph of its hardline stance, Kinshasa is now applying the same tactic to the Doha Declaration:     manipulating public opinion, twisting the meaning of agreements, and proclaiming imaginary victories where there are, at best, temporary pauses.

This     systematic distortion of diplomatic truth     has become a hallmark of the Tshisekedi regime and is part of a broader disinformation strategy that ultimately undermines the DRC’s credibility with its international partners.

When     official communication consistently confuses political desires with legal obligations    , it erodes the trust essential to diplomatic cooperation. By continuously imposing instrumental interpretations on negotiated texts  making them say what they don’t  the Congolese government steadily discredits itself on the global stage.

This     overreliance on propaganda     does not strengthen the government’s position; it isolates it further and traps it in a narrative disconnected from reality.

Toward a Reconfiguration of Authority   

In this context, it is no coincidence that the Doha Declaration emphasizes the     need for sustained and sincere dialogue     aimed at building a     comprehensive agreement    . This requirement points to a reconfiguration of Congo’s political landscape  where state authority must be     reborn not as an extension of a failing regime, but as the result of inclusive and effective governance    .

Boulos’ wording implies that restoring state authority     may not necessitate reinforcing the current power structure    , but instead     could require its transformation    .

This perspective     legitimizes new actors      those capable of providing security, stability, and respect for human rights  whether they are     reformed state structures or emerging politico-military forces     seeking integration.

The     repeated emphasis on “the entire territory”     reveals that the real issue is not simply pushing back the AFC/M23, but     building a national order that is legitimate, functional, and respects fundamental rights    .

In short, the     restoration of state authority entails much more than Kinshasa is willing to admit.     It may well imply, logically and inevitably,     the end of a regime that has failed to deliver it.