There are political attitudes that, on their own, expose the moral bankruptcy of a regime. When a government fears dialogue, it already reveals a troubling lack of democratic maturity. But when it goes further by banning the opposition from meeting and expressing itself, it openly embraces an authoritarianism of another era.
By preventing the LAMUKA coalition delegation from traveling to South Africa to participate in the Thabo Mbeki Foundation forum, the Congolese authorities did more than display their fear of open debate they admitted, before the world, the fragility of their power. Only a weak government feels so threatened by dissent that it confines its opponents within national borders.
The threats against Martin Fayulu, Prince Epenge, and Jean Kasekwa, including seized passports and blocked travel, have nothing to do with so-called “national security.” Instead, they reveal a deeper insecurity: that of a regime unable to confront opposing ideas, believing that silencing its critics will safeguard its rule. This is a reflex of fear, not strength.
📰 Also Read This:
The excuses given are unconvincing. To claim that this forum is part of a “conspiracy” against the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is more paranoia than political analysis. Portraying the announced presence of Joseph Kabila and Corneille Nangaa as an unbearable threat only underscores the government’s obsession with old rivalries. A truly legitimate authority does not tremble before a roundtable discussion even one that might be hostile.
In reality, the DRC is heading into a dangerous deadlock: the more the regime refuses dialogue, the more it fuels dissent. The more it silences the opposition, the more it validates their accusations of repression. And the more it hides behind “national sovereignty,” the more it exposes its inability to embody true national unity.
A confident government opens political space; a weak government closes it. Today, the Kinshasa government has chosen repression locking down freedoms, censoring debate, and banning opposition activities. Yet history across Africa is filled with regimes that believed they could last by silencing their people, only to collapse because they ignored the voice of dissent.
The Congo does not need a prison-state where passports become weapons of control. It needs a democratic state that embraces dialogue, tolerates political divergence, and understands that solutions will never come from repression or fear, but from accepting pluralism and genuine debate.
By barricading itself behind fear and censorship, the current regime risks transforming its fragility into a national crisis.
