Joseph Kabila's return: What it means for the DRC's political landscape
Then Democratic Republic of the Congo's outgoing President Joseph Kabila (L) shakes hands with newly inaugurated President Felix Tshisekedi at a swearing-in ceremony on January 24, 2019 in Kinshasa.
Image: AFP
Dr Sizo Nkala
The former president of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Joseph Kabila returned to the country last week after spending two years in self-imposed exile in South Africa.
Kabila ruled the vast central African country from 2001 after taking over from his father, Laurent Kabila, until 2019 when he handed over the reins to the incumbent President Felix Tshisekedi. Kabila's relationship with President Tshisekedi has deteriorated further since the collapse of their coalition government in 2020.
Tshisekedi's government has repeatedly accused Kabila of collaborating with the M23 rebels to overthrow the government and charged him with committing treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Kabila has denied these accusations. A few days before Kabila arrived in the DRC, the country's Senate which is controlled by the ruling Sacred Union coalition voted to repeal Kabila's honorary title as a lifelong Senator and lifted his immunity from prosecution on the 23rd of May.
The former president responded in a video posted on social media denouncing Tshisekedi's government as a dictatorship and decrying the decline of democracy in the country. He arrived in DRC's eastern city of Goma on May 26. Goma, the strategic capital city of North Kivu province, has been under the control of the M23 since they captured it in January.
As such, he will be safe from any arrest as the government in Kinshasa has effectively lost any jurisdiction in the territory. The M23 welcomed Kabila's arrival stating that it wished him a pleasant stay in the city. Since he arrived in Goma, Kabila has tried to portray himself as a peacemaker.
He met with religious leaders from North Kivu to discuss the current situation in the DRC in what could be the beginning of a bid to drum up public support and stir an anti-government sentiment. To reduce Kabila's influence in the country, the DRC government has imposed a media blackout on the former president by banning all media outlets including television, radio, print and digital press from covering anything about Kabila and his political party, the People's Party for Reconstruction and Democracy (PPRD).
This could be an admission on the part of the government of Kabila's potential to influence public opinion.Kabila arrives on the scene as the M23 and the DRC government have begun negotiations on the resolution of the conflict. President Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart, Paul Kagame, whose government is believed to be backing the M23 rebels met in person in Qatar in March where they committed to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
This meeting paved the way for the DRC government and the M23 rebels to begin direct negotiations for the first time since the beginning of the conflict in 2021. Eventually, the two sides agreed to stop the fighting to allow the Qatar talks to proceed.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
The Rwandan and DRC foreign ministers later met in Washington, US, in April where they signed an agreement pledging mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and a commitment to desist from availing military aid to non-state actors.
The two parties also promised to produce a draft peace deal at the beginning of May. According to President Donald Trump's Senior Advisor for Africa, Massad Boulous, the draft peace plan was duly submitted early in May. Negotiations are underway to produce a final draft.
However, the talks between the DRC government and the M23 have since stalled as fighting is continuing unabated despite the earlier commitments to an unconditional ceasefire. On June 4 pro-government forces clashed with M23 forces in South Kivu. The latter also announced that it would attack a government military base located between Masisi and Walikale districts.
The continued fighting could be an indication that both parties are not willing to make major concessions in the negotiations and may be trying to bolster their negotiating positions through military gains.The presence of Kabila in Goma adds a new dynamic to the conflict.
The fact that Corneille Nangaa, a former close ally of Kabila who served as his election chief, is the leader of the M23 rebels does indeed draw a direct link between the former president and the rebel group thus lending credence to the government's claims. Kabila and the M23 share a common goal of overthrowing the Tshisekedi regime.
While the M23 has the forces and the military muscle, its influence seems to be localized. It is also struggling to shake off the image of being the proxy of a foreign power thus limiting its political appeal to the broad section of the DRC population.
Having led the country for 18 years, Kabila still commands a significant following among the Congolese people and the political class. Just a few years ago he headed the Common Front for Congo (FCC) coalition that won almost 70 per cent of the seats in the Congolese parliament in the 2018 elections and managed to secure key posts in Tshisekedi's government until their fallout in 2020.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Europe's Left Must Unite to Oppose NATO's Rearmament and Austerity
U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth (left) and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in conversation ahead of the meeting of NATO defence ministers at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, on June 5, 2025. Image: AFP John Ross As Europe approaches NATO's 24–26 June summit in The Hague, its 750 million people face a decisive strategic choice that will affect their lives for years to come – and one with a far wider global impact. The policies implemented in Europe in recent years have been disastrous socially, economically, politically, and militarily. Europe is experiencing worsening social conditions, its largest war since 1945 in Ukraine, and the biggest rise of far-right authoritarian, racist, and xenophobic forces since the Nazis in the 1930s. The proposals to the NATO summit would worsen that situation. The key question is therefore whether Europe will continue down this destructive, disastrous path or adopt policies that offer a way out. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has proposed to the 32 NATO members that 'the NATO summit… aim for 3.5% hard military spending by 2032' – a 75% increase from the previous 2.0% GDP target. Trump calls for even higher military expenditure of 5% of GDP. Rutte opened the door to this by supporting a commitment to '1.5% related spending, such as infrastructure, cybersecurity and things like that. Also achievable by 2032'. The 3.5% plus 1.5% adds up to Trump's 5%. The social and political consequences of such a course are already clear. Europe's economies are nearly stagnant, with the EU's annual per capita GDP growth averaging less than 1% from 2007 to 2024. The IMF, somewhat optimistically, projects an increase to only 1.3% by 2030. With rising inequality and reductions in social spending due to austerity policies, hundreds of millions of people in Europe have already experienced stagnant or declining living standards. Diverting more resources into military spending, already being accompanied by social spending cuts to finance it, will worsen that situation further. The political consequences are also clear. Far-right and neo-fascist forces, exploiting the worsening conditions, which are caused by austerity measures and increased military spending, by demagogically blaming immigrants and ethnic and religious minorities, will gain further strength. The disastrous consequences for traditional left-wing and progressive parties supporting or enacting these rearmament and austerity policies, even before their support for the new NATO rearmament policies, are already known in major European countries. The SPD in Germany in 2025 saw its vote drop to 16%, the lowest since 1887. In the last elections at which they stood independently, the French Socialist Party gained only 6%. In Britain, the Labour Party, which already received one of its lowest votes since the 1930s at the last election, is now in the polls behind the far-right Reform Party. In contrast, left-wing parties that have opposed austerity and NATO policies – La France Insoumise in France, Die Linke in Germany, and the Belgian Workers Party – have maintained or significantly increased their support. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This disastrous collapse suffered by traditional left-wing parties that have supported war and austerity is extremely dangerous in the context of the rise of far-right parties across Europe. The reason for the collapsing support for such parties is obvious. Such policies attack the population's living standards. If parties claiming to be on the left continue to support austerity and rearmament, this trend of decline will just continue. The only way out of this situation for both Europe's population and the left is a complete policy reversal to one that prioritises social progress and economic development. Following the end of the Cold War, Europe should have focused on fostering economic cooperation and minimising military tensions and expenditures. This would have created a balanced economic area, equivalent to the US, with a strong potential for growth by combining Western Europe's manufacturing and services with Russia's energy and raw materials. What was possible was shown in Asia by ASEAN, which, in a continent that had suffered the worst conflicts of the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, became the world's most rapidly growing economic region through a concentration on economic development and the absence of military blocs. But, because an economically cooperating Europe could have been a successful competitor to the United States, US administrations pursued a path to prevent it – primarily through NATO's eastward expansion, which was carried out in direct violation of US promises to then-Soviet Premier Gorbachev that NATO would not advance 'an inch' eastward after Germany's reunification. Instead, in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020, new countries were added to NATO, and the door was deliberately left open to admitting Ukraine, known to be a red line for Russia due to Ukraine's proximity to Russia and its position as a historical route for invasion. Numerous US experts on Eastern Europe opposed this, led by George Kennan, the original architect of US Cold War strategy, who warned NATO expansion would be 'the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era'. But their warnings were ignored, with results culminating in the Ukraine war. Now NATO demands rearmament and cuts in social protection to finance this war. NATO forces simultaneously expanded outside Europe to participate in wars in the Global South, Afghanistan and Libya, and set up numerous organisations and initiatives to prepare for intervention in the Global South – such as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the Strategic Direction-South HUB, the Liaison Office in Addis Ababa – and has begun to expand into the Pacific – with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea attending every NATO summit since 2022. Such NATO expansion would involve Europe in even more conflicts and more calls for military expenditure. What is required is the complete opposite – priority to social progress and investment for economic growth. Both require more spending and are therefore directly contrary to a military build-up. Europe's need for social spending is obvious. But Europe's investment, the key to economic growth, has also collapsed. In the EU, investment, once depreciation (the wearing out of existing means of production) is taken into account, has halved from 7.4% of GDP in 2007 to only 3.5% on the latest data. International comparisons show this is enough only to generate 1% annual economic growth. Additionally, the US is now pressing for further policies harmful to Europe and its people. The US has already enormously damaged Europe by its conscious policy of cutting off Western Europe's source of cheap energy from Russia, achieved via the Ukraine war and the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, which anyone who looks seriously at the matter knows was carried out by the US.
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Joseph Kabila's return: What it means for the DRC's political landscape
Then Democratic Republic of the Congo's outgoing President Joseph Kabila (L) shakes hands with newly inaugurated President Felix Tshisekedi at a swearing-in ceremony on January 24, 2019 in Kinshasa. Image: AFP Dr Sizo Nkala The former president of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Joseph Kabila returned to the country last week after spending two years in self-imposed exile in South Africa. Kabila ruled the vast central African country from 2001 after taking over from his father, Laurent Kabila, until 2019 when he handed over the reins to the incumbent President Felix Tshisekedi. Kabila's relationship with President Tshisekedi has deteriorated further since the collapse of their coalition government in 2020. Tshisekedi's government has repeatedly accused Kabila of collaborating with the M23 rebels to overthrow the government and charged him with committing treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Kabila has denied these accusations. A few days before Kabila arrived in the DRC, the country's Senate which is controlled by the ruling Sacred Union coalition voted to repeal Kabila's honorary title as a lifelong Senator and lifted his immunity from prosecution on the 23rd of May. The former president responded in a video posted on social media denouncing Tshisekedi's government as a dictatorship and decrying the decline of democracy in the country. He arrived in DRC's eastern city of Goma on May 26. Goma, the strategic capital city of North Kivu province, has been under the control of the M23 since they captured it in January. As such, he will be safe from any arrest as the government in Kinshasa has effectively lost any jurisdiction in the territory. The M23 welcomed Kabila's arrival stating that it wished him a pleasant stay in the city. Since he arrived in Goma, Kabila has tried to portray himself as a peacemaker. He met with religious leaders from North Kivu to discuss the current situation in the DRC in what could be the beginning of a bid to drum up public support and stir an anti-government sentiment. To reduce Kabila's influence in the country, the DRC government has imposed a media blackout on the former president by banning all media outlets including television, radio, print and digital press from covering anything about Kabila and his political party, the People's Party for Reconstruction and Democracy (PPRD). This could be an admission on the part of the government of Kabila's potential to influence public arrives on the scene as the M23 and the DRC government have begun negotiations on the resolution of the conflict. President Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart, Paul Kagame, whose government is believed to be backing the M23 rebels met in person in Qatar in March where they committed to an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. This meeting paved the way for the DRC government and the M23 rebels to begin direct negotiations for the first time since the beginning of the conflict in 2021. Eventually, the two sides agreed to stop the fighting to allow the Qatar talks to proceed. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The Rwandan and DRC foreign ministers later met in Washington, US, in April where they signed an agreement pledging mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and a commitment to desist from availing military aid to non-state actors. The two parties also promised to produce a draft peace deal at the beginning of May. According to President Donald Trump's Senior Advisor for Africa, Massad Boulous, the draft peace plan was duly submitted early in May. Negotiations are underway to produce a final draft. However, the talks between the DRC government and the M23 have since stalled as fighting is continuing unabated despite the earlier commitments to an unconditional ceasefire. On June 4 pro-government forces clashed with M23 forces in South Kivu. The latter also announced that it would attack a government military base located between Masisi and Walikale districts. The continued fighting could be an indication that both parties are not willing to make major concessions in the negotiations and may be trying to bolster their negotiating positions through military presence of Kabila in Goma adds a new dynamic to the conflict. The fact that Corneille Nangaa, a former close ally of Kabila who served as his election chief, is the leader of the M23 rebels does indeed draw a direct link between the former president and the rebel group thus lending credence to the government's claims. Kabila and the M23 share a common goal of overthrowing the Tshisekedi regime. While the M23 has the forces and the military muscle, its influence seems to be localized. It is also struggling to shake off the image of being the proxy of a foreign power thus limiting its political appeal to the broad section of the DRC population. Having led the country for 18 years, Kabila still commands a significant following among the Congolese people and the political class. Just a few years ago he headed the Common Front for Congo (FCC) coalition that won almost 70 per cent of the seats in the Congolese parliament in the 2018 elections and managed to secure key posts in Tshisekedi's government until their fallout in 2020.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Does Musk-Trump spat blow a hole in Tesla bull case?
An ugly, name-calling, chest-thumping public brawl on Twitter between the richest guy in the world and the most powerful guy in the world – it's what the platform was made for, says the writer. Image: Allison Robbert / AFP I spoke almost a year ago to Mark Spiegel of Stanphyl Capital in New York. He said it was just a matter of time before Musk and Trump fell out – the only question was who would shaft who first, but his view was that sooner or later everyone 'gets Musked'. An ugly, name-calling, chest-thumping public brawl on Twitter between the richest guy in the world and the most powerful guy in the world – it's what the platform was made for. It's also whacked Tesla stock as bulls need to reassess their upside case for the carmaker. Both probably realise that this is doing each of them a lot of harm – Musk could lose billions of dollars in government contracts and tax credits, while Trump could see his 'big beautiful bill' fail to pass. They are going to cool off a bit and talk things over. But in the words of Anchorman, boy, that escalated quickly! Selling in Tesla was HEAVY, with $153bn wiped out in one day. There is a whole cluster of related items here - we saw the likes of Palantir also hit hard, down almost 8%. Tesla, though, is coming back in pre-market trade. BTD is ever present. To summarise where we are - Musk has been criticising the tax and spending bill all week, which prompted Trump to talk about his disappointment with his 'former' ally. Musk then went full tweetstorm and launched a series of attacks on X, suggesting that Trump appears in unreleased files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump shot back, saying Musk "went CRAZY" and was asked to leave the administration, while he also threatened to cut government contracts with Musk's companies. Tesla's stock price dropped 14%. Clearly this introduces new risks for TSLA – the argument that Musk's closeness to Trump was bullish for the stock because Trump always promotes his favourites is kinda becoming unstuck. For instance, the assumption was it would mean an easier path for the rollout of robotaxis or some other favourable policy decision - that is now very much in doubt. Enmity with Trump changes the regulatory environment. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ But, I guess, TACO...? I subsidies were always on the chopping block, but I guess Musk thought his 'influence' at court would help..I guess he found out he'd been labouring under a misapprehension. Anyway, look at it like this – the tax bill will cut Tesla's EV subsidy, probably negatively impact profits by $1.2bn a there is a $2bn hit coming from California explains why Musk is such a critic. The tax bill has much broader ramifications than EV credits and Tesla shares, though, so the question is whether this intervention is going to derail the legislation. If it does, then it's probably GOOD for Tesla. But then Trump has many other levers of vindictiveness to pull – he's already mentioned pulling government contracts for things like SpaceX or Starlink. And then you have to chuck in elements like MS's Adam Jonas says could turn TSLA into a defence stock... I guess TSLA won't be getting any Pentagon contracts soon ...but either way, the bulls will keep grasping and throwing new reasons to buy. Does it blow a hole in the bull case? I never bought into the Tesla bull case in the first case - to me it just reaffirms what I already knew. Let's not forget trade! Before this Trump-Musk spat S&P 500 e-mini futures touched 6,016, the highest since late February, as reports that Trump had held a phone call with China's Xi Jinping. Trump said he has had a "very good" phone call amid their ongoing trade war, during which they agreed to more tariff talks. Meanwhile, markets are braced for today's nonfarm payrolls report from the US. It's expected at 130,000 in May, down from the 177,000 increase recorded in April, with the unemployment rate sticking at 4.2%. Wall Street fell yesterday as Tesla dragged the broader tech sector down, with the Nasdaq Composite down 0.83% and the Nasdaq 100 off 0.8%. The S&P 500 fell half a percent, while the Dow was 0.25% lower. European stock markets were mixed in muted early trade on Friday, with investors looking over their shoulders at trade wars and the economic data in the US, which is going to be important for sentiment. Ultimately, really bad economic data may be coming, but it could spur the Fed into action. Yesterday we had US jobless claims up, labour costs up, productivity data is cracking. Broadcom was down 4% after it forecast modest revenue for the current quarter, hinting AI spending isn't as strong as expected. Sales will be around $15.8 billion, with more AI chip deployment next year. Stock fell 4% in extended trading.
