What the national dialogue means for ordinary Congolese
In Kinshasa, a legal expert has weighed in on the national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi, stressing that its impact on daily life and the country’s economic stability will depend on how it is structured. The dialogue, he argues, must function as a political mechanism for consultation and peacebuilding—not as a parallel institution that could disrupt the normal functioning of the state.
“The national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi should be designed as a political mechanism for consultation and pacification, not as a parallel institution. It can help forge compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reforms, and the functioning of the state. However, it must not become a second parliament, a parallel government, a political court, or a de facto constituent assembly,” said Me Ben Touere, a lawyer at the Paris Bar.
Legal boundaries that protect citizens’ interests
According to the public law doctor and lecturer at Sorbonne Paris Nord University, any political conclusions drawn from the dialogue “could only produce lasting legal effects after being translated by the constitutionally competent institutions.”
He explained: “A legislative reform must go through Parliament; a public policy falls under the Government; a constitutional question falls under the Constitutional Court; and a matter reserved for the direct decision of the people must be submitted to them in the forms provided by law.” The proposed framework thus relies on a sequence: dialogue, consensus, intervention by competent institutions, constitutional review, and—when required or legally warranted—popular consultation.
Me Elenga noted that Article 5 of the Constitution enshrines the principle that national sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it directly through elections or referendums and indirectly through their representatives.
“Neither the majority, nor the opposition, nor the participants in a dialogue can claim national sovereignty,” he stressed.
Economic and social fallout: what’s at stake
The lawyer’s analysis suggests that the dialogue’s real-world effects—on jobs, security, and public services—hinge on whether it strengthens or weakens the state. If it leads to concrete reforms, it could boost investor confidence and improve living conditions. If it creates parallel structures, it risks paralysis, delays in public spending, and a further erosion of trust in institutions.
He concluded that the process must aim to reform and consolidate the state through dialogue, rather than create mechanisms that could weaken it or share its prerogatives.
