"There is no Congo"; what makes a state a state?

In early 2009, Jeffrey Herbst and Greg Mills published an article urging the international community to understand that the Democratic Republic of Congo is not, in their opinion, an actual state. They do not deny the existence of the geographical land mass that is Congo at present, but are challenging the notion that nation states can be considered “states” simply because they are drawn on a map as so. 

To grapple with the content and arguments of this topic it is necessary to define two key terms; “state” and “sovereignty”. A state, or a nation-state, is a form of social collectiveness where a group of people share a sense of common identity (whether it is due to race, religion or language) and share both a political base and a geographical location (G Evans & J Newnham, 1998: 27). Sovereignty describes a countries ability to be the highest authority on decisions and to maintain dominium over other actors within its geographical boarders (JE Thomson, 1995: 214).

The Democratic Republic of Congo is an interesting example particularly because of the sheer size of the country. Herbst and Mills (2009) pointed out that the Congo is a dynamic and many-faceted country that comprises of a spectrum of different cultures, ethnicities, languages and religions. In fact, the many people living in the Congo have little in common with other members of the state, there is no unifying factor, save their colonial past. The map below (CIA World Fact Book, 2011) provides a context for the Democratic Republic of Congo, and makes clear the extent that neighbouring countries possibly have on the rule of the Congo.




The largely random demarcation of the Congo by Belgium in 1960, which lead to the mass grouping of different peoples, has not resulted in a coercive and functional state. This is a serious issue faced not only by the international community, but - more importantly - by the Congolese people.


The suggestion that the Democratic Republic of Congo should no longer be seen, and treated, as a sovereign state has merits and concerns. It is understandable that the current situation is far from ideal and the implementation of a different government system that united people who wanted to be united is an idea worth discussing. Thus it could be reasonable to no longer view the Congo, as it stands, a sovereign state. On the contrary, it may be more effective to focus on improving the current Congo and to build a society that is united and coercive, rather than trying to uproot an already entrenched government system.

In the mid ground of these two options is where the most beneficial solution lies; give the various provincial governments greater power. It can be assumed that within each province lies greater unity among the smaller group of people than it does across the borders of the entire country. This can be capitalised on if the central government is willing to delegate a degree of power unto provincial leaders and departments.

Just as in the United States of America, numerous “states” that are quite different from another are able to form part of a larger, functional country without any serious conflicts of interest, so too could this be the solution to the Congo’s woes. Allowing provinces to be more influential in the running of the country, is likely to give the people of the Congo more power, which in turn is an indirect way to aid nation-building and to lessen current tensions and conflict.

The international community should not stop treating the Congo as a sovereign state. Not only is this a risky procedure, but also one that could cause a lot more harm than good. Once international bodies stop seeing the Congo as a “real” state, people of the Congo may begin to follow suit. It is not unreasonable to guess that if the Congo lost its sovereign status, it would be propelled into a violent civil war with many a power-hungry war monger aiming for power over territory. There are plenty of alternative diplomatic options, like economic sanctions, that could encourage a country to re-evaluate their structure and system.

If the international community were to continue to respect the Democratic Republic of Congo as a sovereign state, and rather attempt to improve the present situation, a peaceful solution could be agreed upon. A diplomatic approach to solving the plethora of problems is more ideal than a political lock-out of an entire country. The UN, along with similar organization, should be supportive of the Congo in its current position and make an effort to implement reasonable changes that would improve the lives of the Congolese.

International communities have a responsibility to protect the peace and wellbeing of people worldwide. It is not their responsibility to make irrational decisions about the future of other states, or cause unnecessary turmoil in already desperate areas. The Democratic Republic of the Congo should remain a sovereign state, and should be guided in the direction of a functioning democracy.

-----

Reference List

CIA World Factbook, 2011. Congo, the Demoratic Republic of. [Online] Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cg.html

Evans, G & Newnham, J, 1998. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. London: Penguin Group. Pg. 27.

Herbst, J & Mills, G 2009. There is no Congo. [Online] Available: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/03/17/there_is_no_congo

Thomspon, JE 1995. State Sovereignty in International Relations: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Empirical Research. International Studies Quarterly Vol. 39, No. 2, pg 214.