The DRC: A ‘failed state’ or has it been failed?
The term ‘failed state’ refers to any state that has qualities of weakness, fragility, or instability due to various reasons, including poverty, lack of security, and lack of the implementation of human rights. Often, these ‘failed states’ possess external and/or normative sovereignty but lack internal and/or factual sovereignty (Shirk). Internal sovereignty is defined as having authority over one’s own given territory without any outside authority over this state. Factual sovereignty is the degree in which a state is actually sovereign. Many have categorized the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as a failed state, however I believed that the DRC has been failed. In other words, the DRC did not become a failed state on its own, rather the colonization and intervention of the Belgian colonists brought about this failure.
Prior to the colonization of the Congo, the native people of this region established a vibrant culture, created an effective agricultural system, fashioned and utilized various forms of technology and weaponry, established hunter-gather groups, formed extensive trading networks, and maintained a relatively strong economy and complex political system. Thus, besides the Kongo Civil War, the Congo region was not a place of constant civil war, lack of economic development, social unrest, human rights abuses, or lack of political control. Before Belgian colonization, the Congo region was quite arguably politically, economically, socially, and securely effective. In terms of political effectiveness, the various kingdoms of the Congo region were generally successful and strong. As for economic effectiveness, the people of the Congo region were a part of a very extensive and high-demanding trade network of the Central African system. Additionally, the Congo was arguably socially effective before colonization due to establishment of a primary language and various different tribes. Prior to colonization, the Congo was also considered to be effective in terms of security due to its powerful military and evidence of weaponry.
In the 1870s, Belgium began to colonize the African state of Congo in order to extract mineral resources such as cobalt, copper, and diamonds. With colonization, the Belgian colonists essentially transformed a stable, sovereign state into one that has now become extremely unstable and ‘failed’. Colonization is the sole factor that has led to the failure of the Congo region, causing human rights abusement, civil war, lack of economic development, social unrest, and an overall lack of political control. All non-European states that have been subjected to European colonization have “faced distinctive limits to their sovereignty” (Opello, Rosow). This form of modernization through European colonization generally has negative outcomes, especially when non-European states (such as the DRC) are unable to live up to the advanced standards of the European colonists (Opello, Rosow). Therefore, colonization usually results in the failure of the state that is being colonized, even if this state had been stable and successful prior to colonization. The Democratic Republic of Congo did not fail on its own terms, rather it has been failed by Belgian colonization of the region and the natives of the Congo are forced to live with the negative effects of neo-colonialism.
Works Cited
Opello, Walter C., and Stephen J. Rosow. “The Nation-State and Global Order: A Historical
Introduction to Contemporary Politics.” 1999.
Shirk, Mark. “Failed States Lecture.” International Relations. Stonehill College, Easton. 12
October 2017. Lecture.
This is my post! Sorry for not including my name!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point of the DRC having been a failed state. I know that some of the tribal lands and kingdoms even adopted Christianity to compete with those European colonists and be seen as equal to their king. Even if colonization were to happen to the DRC, what would you change during the formation of the state to try to set it up for a path to success rather than failure?
ReplyDeleteThat’s a very interesting question! During the formation of the colonized state of the DRC, there are several things that could have been done in order to ensure that this state was on the path to success rather than failure. These factors include making sure that human rights are respected, preventing social unrest, implementing security, and maintaining economic security in order to prevent poverty. These are only a few factors that would most likely prevent the failure of a colonized state such as the DRC. If the Belgian colonists had taken these steps to ensure the success of the DRC post-colonization, then the DRC might not be as unstable as it is in its current state.
DeleteDo you think that maybe they should have broken the state up into smaller states surrounding the local cultures and/or ethnic groups?
DeleteYes, I think this would have been a good idea! This might have preserved the cultures of these ethnic groups and it might have allowed for certain ethnic groups to survive post-colonialism.
DeleteVictoria,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting analysis of the situation in the DRC. I agree with you that Belgian colonization did not lead to an effective government or set the country up for long term post-colonial success. However, do you think that the DRC would have the necessary industrialization and technology to be a competitive world power (or in the BRICs classification we discussed in class) if they had never been under colonial rule?
Thank you, Brenna! I do believe that the DRC would have most likely had the necessary industrialization and technology to be a competitive world power if they had never been under colonial control. I believe this because, prior to colonization, the DRC was already quite strong and effective in terms of security, political structure, economic structure, and social structure. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that the DRC would have most likely maintained these strengths in industrialization (strength in the economy) and technology (strength in security) in order to reach the status of a world power.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your post! Your evidence was great and connected well to your argument. Your explanation of Belgium's colonizing of the Democratic Republic of Congo shows how deeply damaging colonization can be to a state. This destruction, as you mentioned can even lead to a failed state.
ReplyDeleteIf a state of great global power such as the United States or China intervened do you think the colonization could have been stopped? Hypothetically if a great power stopped the colonization, do you think this intervention could've set an example to stop other colonization in the past and stop future colonization?
Thank you, Liz! You pose a really great question here! Yes, I do believe that U.S. intervention (or the intervention of another great world power) would have been quite beneficial in preventing, or at least hindering, the process of colonization in the DRC. This would be due to its status as a “great power” and its high ranking military and advanced technology, whereas Belgium was not necessarily seen as a great power. Providing support to the DRC was definitely of great interest to the United States, most likely due to the fact that the U.S. was once a colony of Great Britain itself. The intervention of a great power would have most likely been able to set an example to stop future colonization because great powers tend to have a lot of influence and are considered to be quite legitimate, causing other states to value their decisions.
Delete