Why does ODEP describe the ongoing dialogue in the DRC as a betrayal and what are the consequences for national unity?

### ODEP Reaction: Patriotism or Division in the DRC?

On February 11, 2025, the Observatory of Public Expenditure (ODEP) created controversy by describing the ongoing dialogue between the Catholic Churches, Rwanda, and the M23 rebel movement as “betrayal.” This call for “patriotic resistance” raises crucial questions. If patriotism can unite, can it also divide in a country marked by tumultuous ethnic diversity? In a context where African societies often juggle the challenges of nationalism, could ODEP exacerbate internal tensions instead of fostering unity?

As the country struggles with divergent political legitimacies and broken promises, the future of the DRC may require more than just cries of unity. Deep reflection on inclusive dialogue and a shared vision seem to be becoming imperatives for building a peaceful future. The answer to this crisis may lie not in the affirmation of identity, but in the delicate art of conciliation between different voices.
### ODEP’s Reaction: A Patriotic Echo or a Call for Division in the DRC?

On February 11, 2025, the Observatory of Public Expenditure (ODEP) issued a cry of alarm through a firm and unequivocal statement, denouncing the ongoing dialogue between the Catholic Churches, Rwanda and the M23 rebel movement. ODEP describes this process as “betrayal” and calls for patriotic resistance, emphasizing the urgency of unity in the face of an already precarious situation.

This reaction is indicative of a complex reality in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where nationalist sentiment and political tensions are mixed with the challenge of governance that serves all. But behind ODEP’s strong words lies an essential question: does this position contribute to a better understanding of the ongoing crisis or does it only further widen the gap between the different factions in the country?

#### A historical context of mistrust

To truly grasp the scope of this statement, it is crucial to recall the historical context. The DRC, with its tumultuous past, has constantly navigated between internal power struggles and external interference, particularly from Rwanda. The M23, which is known for its armed actions in the east of the country, is often considered an extension of Rwandan interests on Congolese soil. ODEP, by denouncing dialogue with its actors, seems to want to revive the old demons of mistrust, thus releasing a discourse that feeds nationalist anxieties.

#### The shadow of a growing division

ODEP’s call for “patriotic resistance” and a “national awakening” must be put into perspective. If patriotism is a powerful driving force, it can also be a tool for division. In a country where ethnic diversity is a source of wealth, this assertion of a national identity surrounded by flags and slogans could weaken the struggles for social justice and inclusion.

Furthermore, it is interesting to compare this situation with other African contexts where nationalist movements have sometimes led to internal tensions. Examples such as the identity movement in South Africa, which seeks to restore South African dignity in the face of persistent inequality, but which sometimes comes up against identity paradoxes, remind us that a call for unity can easily turn into the exclusion of certain communities.

#### The divergent voices of the political class

ODEP is not alone on the chessboard. The different political factions, as well as public opinion, show signs of being torn apart by the legitimacy of the dialogue proposed by the Churches. For some, this dialogue is seen as an opportunity to put an end to years of violence. For others, it represents a capitulation to rebel forces, reinforcing the idea that the needy and victims of conflict remain in the background of discussions.

In conjunction with regional organizations such as the EAC and SADC, the DRC is under pressure to engage in dialogue. These regional platforms are promoting a political solution, suggesting that the conflict cannot be resolved through unilateral actions. Here, the question arises: what weight does ODEP have in the face of a public opinion increasingly tired of broken promises? Furthermore, is ODEP becoming a marginal actor whistling at a rising tide with a united voice?

#### A call for peaceful reflection

To conclude, the ODEP statement, despite its patriotic spirit, raises questions about the viability of schematic confrontations and oppositions. Strong language may be warranted, but it must also be accompanied by a willingness to engage in dialogue, as other countries realize the importance of building bridges between communities instead of fueling division.

A peaceful future for the DRC will require more than just an emotional turnaround. It will require political courage from leaders, a collective voice from civil society, and most importantly, a shared desire to move toward inclusive solutions. A colossal challenge, but a historic imperative.

So, beyond the war cries of some, a softer but equally resolute voice is needed: that of authentic and inclusive dialogue, which addresses without taboo the wounds of the past while building a better future. Building bridges between patriotism, dialogue, and inclusiveness could be the key to a peaceful DRC.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *