The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is in the grip of growing political tension. Indeed, a few months before the general elections scheduled for December 2023, the Congolese opposition is rebelling against an electoral process deemed “chaotic”. Ensemble pour la République by Moïse Katumbi, ECiDé by Martin Fayulu, LGD by Matata Ponyo and Envol by Delly Sesanga have organized a series of peaceful demonstrations against what they describe as the preparation of a new electoral hold-up in favor of President Tshisekedi current.
The Congolese national police repressed the first demonstration organized on May 20, causing reactions both nationally and internationally. Social networks have widely relayed images of police violence against peaceful demonstrators, arousing general indignation.
This situation seems to worry the Congolese government, which has expressed its intention to restrict access to these social networks. Claude Ibalanky, former coordinator of the National Monitoring Mechanism of the Addis Ababa Framework Agreement newly appointed roving ambassador of President Félix Tshisekedi, stepped up to the plate by believing that social networks have a real impact on politics, the march and the security of the country. According to him, some users abuse these platforms to negatively influence the masses. For this reason, he questioned the possibility of restricting access to these networks, as is done in China and other countries, in the name of national security.
If this method were adopted, it would not be a first in the DRC. Under former President Joseph Kabila, the government had already ordered several internet shutdowns, including during the December 2018 general elections.
Internet access can be limited in several ways. Service providers can block commonly used social media platforms, or order a complete internet blockage. Another method is to severely limit traffic to specific sites, thereby slowing down service and discouraging users.
Such a restriction of access to social networks, if it were to be put in place, would probably arouse a wave of indignation on the part of the population and civil society actors, who would see it as an attack on the freedom of expression and communication