**The DRC and the death penalty: between national sovereignty and international pressure**
The recent debate on the death penalty in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has raised tensions both internally and internationally. While President Félix Tshisekedi has just announced the lifting of the moratorium on this practice in force since 2003, a key question arises: to what extent can the sovereignty of a State be reconciled with the demands of the international community in terms of human rights?
President Tshisekedi’s speech, delivered during a ceremony to exchange greetings with diplomats, highlights the ambiguity of a decision which, despite reassuring justifications, brings a controversial legal tool back to the forefront. The increase in the death penalty for acts of “terrorism” and “treason” within the Armed Forces of the DRC is part of a fight against growing insecurity and the feeling of impunity that is plaguing the country, but at what cost?
### A historical precedent tinged with contradictions
The death penalty has a long history in the DRC, marked by abuses and arbitrary executions. In the era of Mobutu Sese Seko, summary executions were common, often used as instruments of political repression. Today, the country finds itself at a delicate crossroads between the need to restore state authority and the growing voice of human rights defenders. How, in light of its past, can the DRC ignore the dangers that such a decision presents?
### A question of international attractiveness
From a geopolitical point of view, the lifting of the moratorium could have repercussions on the DRC’s diplomatic relations. Several Western countries, while engaged in economic partnerships with the country, have expressed reservations about the preservation of fundamental rights. An analysis of data provided by human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, reveals that countries that have maintained or reintroduced the death penalty have often suffered sanctions or diplomatic pressure. In 2021, for example, 20% of countries that have renewed this practice saw their international aid decrease.
The DRC, with its abundant natural resources, represents a strategic interest for many powers. However, the choice to resort to the death penalty again could well be a factor of isolation during economic negotiations with countries concerned with respecting human rights standards.
### Justice in a nascent democracy
Félix Tshisekedi speaks of a strong justice system as a necessary pillar for sustainable development and peace. Yet this vision clashes with the realities of a judicial system often considered inefficient and corrupt.. In light of recent statistics, crime rates in cities such as Kinshasa and Lubumbashi are reportedly reaching record levels, propelling the security discourse to the forefront. However, the question remains: can an increase in repression through the death penalty truly stop this cycle of violence, or will it instead contribute to fueling an already palpable community resentment?
### Taking the path of another approach
At a time when the fight against terrorism and crime remains a major challenge, alternative solutions could emerge. Countries such as Portugal, which abolished the death penalty in 1976 and has since focused on the rehabilitation of criminals and the strengthening of social services, have managed to reduce their crime rates while preserving human dignity. The model of restorative justice invites us to rethink judicial responses to insecurity. It encourages perpetrators to acknowledge their wrongdoing and engage in reparation processes, a path that could contribute to genuine reconciliation in a country still scarred by decades of conflict.
### Conclusion
The choice of whether or not to reintroduce the death penalty in the DRC is not only a question of legislation, it is a barometer of the values of a nation in search of identity and respect in the concert of nations. While President Tshisekedi assures that no executions will be carried out in the immediate future, it is crucial to question the long-term implications of this decision on Congolese society and its international image. At a time when the world is often moving towards more compassion and rehabilitation, the DRC should perhaps consider a strategy that prioritizes social justice over punitive justice. Such reflection could not only transform the Congolese judicial landscape, but also pave the way for a more harmonious and inclusive future.
In this quest for identity and authority, the DRC must explore all possible avenues to combine sovereignty and respect for fundamental rights, because it is in this duality that the future of an emerging nation is taking shape.