** Political accusations in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a debate on peace and security **
*The political landscape in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is in full swing, marked by tensions between the current government and the opposition, in particular around the former presidency of Joseph Kabila. The recent press release of Aubin Minaku, vice-president of the People’s Party for reconstruction and democracy (PPRD), recalls the tense climate which reigns around the accusations aimed at the former president as the hidden support of the rebels in the east of the country. These events raise a fundamental question: what is the role of political leaders in the persistent security crisis?*
### ** A new momentum in accusations **
At the Munich conference in February 2025, President Félix Tshisekedi accused Joseph Kabila of being the “real sponsor” of armed rebellions that devastate the east of the DRC. These words, heavy with consequences, illustrate not only the country’s political fractures, but also a diversion strategy that could hide the inability of current governance to establish peace. In response, Aubin Minaku vigorously defended Kabila, claiming that no credible report established these accusations and deploring a government approach which seems to be confined to chin strokes.
### ** A question of leadership and responsibility **
Minaku supports a holistic approach to resolve security issues in the DRC, saying that peace cannot be restored by force alone. This point of view raises an essential reflection: must the security policy only rely on repression? Recent studies show that restoration of sustainable peace requires taking into account the socio-economic causes that feed violence, such as poverty, unemployment and social injustice.
It is also interesting to note that since the departure of Kabila in 2019, the country has continued to deal with armed conflicts in the East, a place that many consider to be out of control. Political alternation has therefore not produced tangible changes in the security situation. This also raises a crucial question: do the former leaders really have the power to generate violence or is this phenomenon structural, anchored in a history of conflicts and inequality?
### ** Towards an alternative narration **
Beyond the accusations, it could be relevant to explore why lately, rhetoric between Kabila and Tshisekedi has intensified. An analysis of the media and political landscape in the DRC could reveal a maneuver on the part of the president in place to consolidate his power and divert the attention of the failures of his administration. Indeed, by brandishing Kabila as an enemy, Tshisekedi could position himself as the “Savior” in the face of an alleged permanent threat.
In addition, this opposition between old and new regimes can fuel a polarization climate which makes any constructive discussion on practically impossible peace solutions. At a time when the country has a great need for reunification to deal with security challenges, it is crucial that political actors are moving towards inclusive dialogues.
### ** Conclusion: challenges of peace and inclusion **
The accusing rhetoric between Kabila and Tshisekedi unveils tensions that risk placing the quest for peace in the DRC. Minaku is right to emphasize that this does not provide solutions to the crisis. Instead of pointing the finger, it would be desirable for Congolese leaders to be able to engage in a collaborative approach to treat the roots of the conflict.
Finally, it is vital for Congolese society to claim leadership -based leadership, dialogue and a real peace policy. National reconciliation must take precedence over power struggles if we wish a serene future for the Congolese, who aspire to a life without war, filled with opportunities and dignity. Concerted efforts between former and new political actors, citizen initiatives, and international support for inclusive governance would be fundamental stages to go towards a peaceful society.