The State Of My Ignorance With Regards The Democratic Republic Of The Congo: Abysmal (for now).

"Plato by a goodly similitude declareth, why wise men refrain to meddle in the commonwealth. For when they see the people swarm into the streets, and daily wet to the skin with rain, and yet cannot persuade them to go out of the rain, they do keep themselves within their houses, seeing they cannot remedy the folly of the people" - Sir Thomas More, De Optimo Rei Publicae Statu Deque Nova Insula Utopia, 1516.

My brother deployed to the DRC War 1998 - 2002 from 1 Commando, and so was a great source of operational/tactical  details of this theatre.

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu

A blind man at midnight on a dark moonless night is a fair characterisation of my knowledge of the Democratic Republic of the Congo at this moment. Yet, in 3 months time I should be an expert that could be called on serious TV programmes to discuss the dynamics there. I say "could be called" because I don't think the word is out there yet that I will never do TV or mainstream newspapers anyway. Anything I want to say, I will say it on Facebook or on my Blog.

But Why Is This The Case?

By which I mean why am I so ignorant about the DRC. The fact of the matter is I have always found no reason (pre-my international relations degree) to think about the DRC. My brothers fought in the Mozambique War from 1986 - 1992 and then the DRC War from 1998 - 2002, but looking at my geography map, I could understand why Mozambique but not the DRC. We share the longest land border with Mozambique and our nearest distance to the seaports is at Beira. So, Mozambique ticks all the boxes where our vital national interests are concerned. The DRC and Zimbabwe on the other hand are separated by a whole country - Zambia. For the longest time I held the view that the DRC should be thrown out of SADC. In fact, I held this view up until 2013 when I finalised my International Relations dissertation: "Southern African Development Community (SADC), 1980 - 2010: An Assessment of the Opportunities and Constraints to Regional Integration." Thankfully my supervisor then, as now, prevented me from making prescriptions, but the point is that until May 2013, I did not want to know about the DRC.

Even until about February 2014, my approach to the DRC has not been selfless or for the sake of solidarity with the long suffering people of that country but more that of a selfish: "if I can understand this very complex problem, then solving and contributing to my own Republic (Zimbabwe's) best practice will be a walk in the park." But you see, I am getting so animated that I have not even bothered to introduce the purpose of this blog entry properly.

Introduction:

The Durham Global Security Institute at Durham University accepted my application last year on the basis of my proposal to contribute to an understanding of what can enhance human security in Southern Africa. I was very clear in my proposal; that I cared about this topic because I am potentially the 1 in 10 or 6 out of 10, or whatever statistical measure that is en vogue these days when announcing the victims of human insecurity. My proposal was to build on my intimate knowledge of the Southern African dynamics (the DRC has never been Southern African in my book) so as to add to the recorded stock of knowledge on behalf of that geographical location. Yet continual thinking about the issues made me realise that the only reason why I wanted the DRC thrown out of SADC was because that seems the easy solution, and not because I could - through logic - argue that the DRC's inclusion has had a destabilising effect on the entire region. Consequently, somehow, I roped myself into writing a 15 000 word dissertation explaining the dynamics of the DRC. My plan was very simple (and brilliant until I met my supervisor): to show that the DRC's weak statehood is the reason for continual conflict and the source of human insecurity. Strengthen the State's institutions and you are home and dry. Wow! Right? Wrong!

The State and Human Security in the Democratic Republic of Congo: 

Met my dissertation supervisor, convinced that I had all the foundational blocks in place to make a convincing argument about resolving insecurity in the DRC. This was the outcome of our meeting!

Over a 1 hour first meeting with my dissertation supervisor all my brilliant ideas were shot to shreds as either presumptuous, un-academic, un-analytical or pedestrian. She didn't say it in those words but I am perceptive like that! So, in 1 hour, the dissertation I thought would write itself fell apart. Oh, trust and believe, the dissertation will be written. It is my firm rule since primary school that: we do not return a blank answer sheet in an exam or for coursework. It will just be harder than I thought, that's all. But the real reason of this blog entry is to record all I know about the DRC at this stage. This will add to my own surprise when I finally finish this dissertation and will likely have knowledge at par with the citizens of the DRC.

What I Know Now:

For now I know all the things that are easily found on Wikipedia; the flag, notable persons, events etc but not the interconnections between them, but give me 3 months and I will be able to tell you much more.

My approach and central argument which may or may not survive the next 3 months is this - The centrality of the State in the provision of human security: a defence, development and diplomacy analysis of insecurity in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

All the symbols of Statehood are there, but is it really a State?

In The State's Defence

"The State is the name by which we call the great human conspiracy against hunger and cold, against loneliness and ignorance; the State is the foster-mother and warden of the arts, of love, of comradeship, of all that redeems from despair that strange adventure we call human life" - Thomas Michael Kettle, 9 February 1880 - 9 September 1916.

Durhan University Palace Green Library, 2014

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu

Can we consider the modern state as the best ‘tool’ to preserve order and justice within a territory? 

The question as to whether the State is the best organizing principle in international affairs arises because of the existence of failed states, wars between states and, states that routinely abuse the human rights of those it should be protecting. In all of modernity, blame for the horrors of the Holocaust and the Two World Wars has been laid squarely on the doorstep of the State system which can mobilise for industrial wars and is able to unleash violence that individuals in a state of nature could not possibly bring to bear. This issue requires us to investigate the reasons why states came into being and whether they are satisfying those reasons. It has to be posited from the outset that not all states are failing to provide order and justice; this would then tilt our enquiry towards the question what kind of state is best for the preservation of order and justice? If we go down that path, then we will essentially be comparing Hobbes’s authoritarian state with John Locke’s liberal democracy.

The State of Nature:

The State is the centre of power and the organizing principle in the modern age. The logic that justifies the existence of the State is that: life would be infinitely worse for everyone in a society where individuals are unrestrained by the law and by the threat of punishment. The existence of the State then answers the questions ‘who gets what?’ and ‘says who?’ The first of these questions is about the distribution of rights and material goods. The second question is about who should hold the power to decide the distribution of public goods.

The idea that life would be infinitely worse without the state to provide order and justice was pondered by such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau and they used the state of nature metaphor to elicit what would ensure. To the likelihood of living in a state of nature, Thomas Hobbes famously argued “there is no place for industry or the arts…. and worst of all continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He presumed, correctly, by being a witness to the English Civil War, that without a common power to settle disputes, to offer physical security and punish offenders, life was unbearable as everyone would be in severe conflict with each other. Whatever individuals possess, others may desire and will take by force; and even those who have nothing are in danger of a pre-emptive strike, or a strike just to enhance the reputation of the attacker. The way out of this predicament for Hobbes is to institute a sovereign who will severely punish the offenders and if the sovereign is effective in keeping people to the laws, then and only then, can no one have reasonable suspicion that others will attack. The State is supposed to provide this umbrella of safety.

John Locke, considering the same subject thought that, in contrast, it was possible to live an acceptable life even in the absence of government. But Locke’s arguments though less pessimistic than Hobbes,’ he still comes to the conclusion that law needs an enforcer. Their only difference is that Hobbes would have accepted an authoritarian state, while what Locke argues for, is what is now called a liberal democracy.

The only people who think a state can be done away with are anarchists who believe humans are perfectible and can live without the need for government. They aver that governments are not the appropriate remedy for anti-social behaviours as they are the causes of the malaise in the first place. It is a dissenting voice worth noting only insofar as we have said above that some governments have breached the rights they are meant to be protecting.

The Effective State:

As the preceding section has attempted to show, the existence of the state is justified on the count that there are no real alternatives to it. The question can be asked then what makes an effective state. States seem to have been created out of war, and the victors then evolved mechanisms that awarded them legitimacy so as to obviate the real risk of insurrection every few years. In the experience of the United States, the end of the fighting resulted in a Constitution that has a separation of powers between the three branches of government and, importantly, regular democratic elections whereby leaders may be peacefully changed.

The state created in this sense then can be argued to have the important attribute Max Weber identified for effective states. He identified it as possessing a monopoly of legitimate violence within a territory. Such a state also accepts the responsibility of protecting everyone who resides within its borders from illegitimate violence. Citizens forfeit the right to protect themselves only on the understanding that they do not need self-protection: the state will do what is necessary for them. This kind of state then exists and is legitimate because of the social contract arguments of tacit, voluntary and hypothetical consent. It promises security and distributive justice and it delivers, where it fails there are mechanisms for peaceful change of leadership.

A Weberian state with an effective monopoly on violence is one where stability may be found, whereas in the absence of that, a state is only a state in name and its territory tends to resemble what is described in the Hobbesian state of nature metaphor.

The Ineffective State:

The state that brings into question whether something else would not better serve the people is the authoritarian state, with its attendant practices of denying human rights, denying safety of persons and denying distributive justice. This type of state is unwilling to protect the rights of people. The other kind is the failed state, which is unable to preserve order and justice within its claimed territory.

The distinctions we are making between effective and ineffective states can be further coaxed out if we consider what the differences are in the creation of these states. If we accept the unilinearity argument as valid then we are witnessing in the turmoil in the failed states and nascent democracies, the very stage of creation the now effective states went through in their development. The Zone of Peace and Zone of Turmoil argument subsists at this point. In this argument, the Global North is seen to working according to the Lockean logic whereas the Global South is seen to be working according to the Hobbesian logic. The argument further is that, to a greater degree, the countries in North’s states have managed to provide order and justice to their polities because they already passed through their turmoil phases necessary to create a strong state.

In contrast, the Global South is said by Ayoob Mohammed to be at the formative stage and thus characterised by the failures in the provision of order that make it to the news headlines. This attempt to create a strong state in its territory is then undermined by the challenges of globalization and universal human rights regimes and threats of intervention by outside powers. The result is these states remain malformed, fragile and very ineffective. The paradox here is that democracy cannot thrive in the absence of political order which only a strongly entrenched state can provide.

Responsibility to Prevent:

In conclusion then, yes it is true: modern states possess a built-in paradoxical tendency to undermine the very order and justice they are constituted to protect. However states are justifiable because there is no viable alternative to it. The Palestinians believe achieving a state for themselves will bring order, justice and dignity to their lives. Territories without state pacification exhibit the nightmare scenario envisaged in Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature metaphor, while states in the North where strong effective states have control over territory exhibit the Lockean logic of equal, free and independent citizens with access to property and some dignity. As for states that abuse human rights, they are not a sufficient argument for thinking the state system ought to be abandoned. They are never in the majority, so remedies such as those proposed in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, if instituted without ulterior motives, should assist in correcting the defect of states failing to provide order and justice in the modern age.

General Sir Richard Dannatt with us at Durham University's School of Government & International Affairs.

Notes: 

Wolff, Jonathan (2006), An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

On Security

I took the passage below out of its immediate context in Utilitarianism so as to understand its starkest and most ordinary meaning. In a sentence; we can't live without security. Obvious, plain, uncontroversial even. The headache begins when we try to discuss provision of security and the various things it has come to mean in the world today. Take "human security" for instance, which questions if the state should be entrusted with providing security. If not the state, then who?

On this stance I yield to no one; because of the ethical deficiency of most people, the state has to retain the monopoly on the use of force.

by Kudakwashe Kanhutu

Mill On Security

"Security is the most vital of all interests. Most earthly benefits, can, if necessary, be cheerfully foregone or replaced by something else; but security no human being can possibly do without; on it we depend for all our immunity from evil and for the whole value of every good, beyond the passing moment, since nothing but the gratification of the instant could be of any worth to us if we could be deprived of everything the next instant by whoever was momentarily stronger than ourselves. Now this most indispensable of all necessaries, after physical nutrition, cannot be had, unless the machinery for providing it is kept unintermittently in active play."

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.