### Organization of the state of siege in the Democratic Republic of Congo: lighting on a complex context
On March 21, 2025, a plenary of the Congolese Senate led to the adoption without debate of the extension of the state of siege in the provinces of North Kivu and Ituri. The process, led by Senator Justin Kalumba, was greeted by some as an act of wisdom in the face of the gravity of the security situation. However, this episode raises questions of a scope far beyond the simple parliamentary procedure.
#### A fragile context
The Democratic Republic of Congo is a country struggling with recurring armed conflicts, especially in the East, where rebel groups continue to threaten stability. The frequent use of the state of siege is not a panacea but rather a symptom of a deeper evil: the inability of the State to establish a lasting order in the face of historical, economic and social tensions. By extending this state of emergency, the government expresses a desire for rapid reaction to threats, but this could also indicate growing membership of restrictive measures that jeopardize civil rights.
### The lack of debate: a wise choice?
The decision not to debate this extension, suggested by Kalumba, presents a double edge. On the one hand, some believe that an open discussion could have led to sensitive information leaks likely to affect national security. On the other, this practice of lack of debate raises questions on the transparency of the democratic process. Do the representatives of the people really have the power to make their voices heard and question the decisions of the executive when they choose the path of discretion?
In several democracies, the need for debates on security issues is crucial. For example, in the United Kingdom, parliamentary discussions around military actions and emergency measures are designed to inform and educate the public. Transparency, even in times of crisis, strengthens confidence between administration and citizens. The DRC, on the other hand, seems to navigate between the need for security and that of democracy.
### Setting state: a tool or an escape?
For some analysts, the state of siege can be seen as a legitimate instrument to restore order in unstable regions. However, a more critical reflection reveals that this strategy can also be perceived as an escape from the implementation of essential structural reforms. Indeed, the question of security in the DRC is often linked to systemic causes such as poverty, corruption and nepotism. The imposition of the state of siege could divert the attention of the real socio-economic issues, plunging the country into a cycle of violence and repression.
Studies also reveal that periods of siege state can exacerbate community tensions, increasing the risk of human rights violations. According to a report by Human Rights Watch, conflicts in DRC are often exacerbated by military interventions which lack peace and reconciliation strategies and are more focused on order than on the solving fundamental problems.
#### A collective response
The Senator Cédric’s discourse ngine on the importance of wisdom in the treatment of these delicate questions invites reflection on the need for a collective approach. The desire for parliamentarians to facilitate a more discreet debate could be a prudent strategy in a context of insecurity. However, it is imperative that this community does not turn into complacency.
The DRC needs a prompt political elite to defend the rights of its citizens while fighting for peace. The recognition of divergent voices and the preservation of debate spaces, even difficult, must have priority for the common good. This implies going beyond the simple vote in the room and creating mechanisms of popular participation, thus making citizens actors and not simple spectators of political life.
### Conclusion
The adoption by hand of the extension of the state of siege in the DRC, while answering a security emergency, raises questions on the democratic future of the country. Reflection on the choice of a debate or not, the transparency of government decisions, and the need for a collective response to insecurity highlights the importance of a balanced approach between security and civil rights. True wisdom would ultimately consist in establishing governance which attacks the roots of conflicts while opening the doors to an inclusive and constructive dialogue. Fatshimetrie.org closely follows this evolution of a situation that deserves our full attention.