Conflict and Conflict Resolution in the DRC: Why Local Approaches Matter

By Billy Agwanda and Israel Nyaburi Nyadera

Introduction

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has experienced armed conflicts for much of its post-colonial history, beginning with the Congo Crisis—a proxy conflict of the Cold War—which exacerbated complex and intractable ethnic frictions. The conflict in the DRC is one of the deadliest and most protracted conflicts since the end of World War II: estimates indicate that more than six million people have lost their lives from direct or indirect conflict-induced violence. Some of the deadliest conflict events in the DRC include the Congo Crisis (1960 -1965), which claimed the lives of more than 100,000 people, and the First and Second Congo Wars, which involved multiple countries including Rwanda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Chad, Namibia, Libya, and Sudan, leading to the death of over 5.4 million people. Further, a combination of human rights violations, climate change, identity based conflicts and natural resource conflicts have resulted in the internal displacement of over 7.4 million people. Reports by humanitarian organizations such as World Vision highlight that 25 million people faced acute food insecurity in 2023. Other studies show that violence has eroded social structures, leading to the exploitation of children as child laborers and child soldiers.

Collapsed agreements and elusive peace

The protracted and multifaceted conflict in the DRC has prompted numerous peace initiatives, spanning from the Pretoria Agreement of 2002 to the Nairobi Peace Process of 2022, each reflecting concerted yet challenging efforts to address the persistent instability (see table 1). Some of the key features of these peace processes include international and regional interventions, disarmament initiatives, and power sharing agreements. Despite the validity of the proposed interventions, these approaches tend to assert a top-down approach to peacebuilding with limited success. These constraints can be attributed to three main issues.

Figure 1: Summary of previous peace agreements in the DRC

First, the agreements embodied linearity by assuming that, once signed, the conflicts would de-escalate and peace would emerge. This approach overlooks the complex and cyclical nature of conflict in the DRC where multiple actors, shifting alliances, and localized grievances reignite violence. This has meant that peace agreements have excluded local communities and other armed groups. Even broad, actor-based agreements, such as the Nairobi Peace Process, which comprised 54 signatories, were still exclusive given that there were over 120 armed groups active in the country. Second, weak implementation capacity has consistently undermined peace agreements. Peacekeeping missions mandated to oversee the implementation of ceasefires have consistently fallen short, their presence sometimes even fueling conflicts. This is evident in the UN peacekeeping missions suffering from a crisis of legitimacy. Indeed, Congolese citizens have often protested against the UN missions, citing failure to protect civilians from violence. For example, Jimmy Lumangabo, who is a member of the National du Mouvement Civique Génération Positive-RDC (a civil society group in the DRC) observed in an interview that the protest, “…is simply an act to show that the population is extremely angry at the non-existent results of MONUSCO … the mission does not respond to the real need of the people… they are accomplices of our misfortunes.” These protests were taking place in Goma, a city in Eastern DRC, following an increase in attacks against civilians despite the presence of MONUSCO troops.

Finally, these peace agreements have failed to deter external state actors from fueling conflict. For decades, armed groups, particularly in Eastern DRC, have been used as proxies to mount an insurgency against the DRC government or to fight other armed groups designated as terrorists and genocidaires by Uganda and Rwanda. A publication by the Financial Times reveals that external state actors have also supported violence in the region to promote a war economy of illegal exploitation of mineral resources. Rebel groups have maintained control of strategic informal supply chains for these resources and have used the proceeds to purchase weapons, and recruit fighters. This war economy has thus become a major cause for the violation of ceasefire agreements, especially when rebels use violence to maintain or gain control over mines and transport routes.

A complimentary pathway to conflict resolution

The repeated collapse of peace in the DRC is a testament that these agreements have serious flaws. This has in turn limited their utility in establishing negative peace–the absence of direct violence–and in laying the groundwork for the long-term transition into positive peace–the absence of indirect and structural violence.

There is a tendency to downplay the conflict resolution agency of locals, despite the fact that locals are responsible for the pockets of peace that exist within violent conflict settings. Research shows that peace is likely to endure when driven by locals, as their intimate understanding of conflicts enables them to identify and access diverse entry points for intervention. Therefore, while stability imposed by external intervention is vital, such stability lacks the resilience inherent in a peace crafted within the crucible of local dynamics and compromises.

Analyzing the collapse of peace agreements reveals significant impediments to the sustainability of local peacebuilding efforts, most notably the disproportionate influence wielded by external actors in conflict resolution processes. This dominance stems from their expansive mandates, substantial financial resources, and entrenched perceptions of local institutions as inherently fragile. Such external interventions, often characterized by a top-down approach, implicitly prioritize formalized, output-driven frameworks, thereby marginalizing organic, community-centered mechanisms and reinforcing systemic biases against locally led initiatives. This bias is further exacerbated by aversion to risk because of the lack of confidence in the capacity of local entities to effectively undertake conflict resolution. Additionally, limited knowledge of the local context renders many local actors and initiatives invisible to outsiders, while operational constraints such as funding criteria make it challenging for some outsiders to support small-scale activities that characterize local approaches. Moreover, there is limited visibility of evidence showcasing the success of local initiatives. This challenge is worsened by the inclinations that ‘successful’ peacebuilding must impact highly visible and high-level national peace processes.

Nevertheless, localizing conflict resolution is imperative to bridge the shortcomings of national conflict resolution processes. Local peace initiatives are predisposed to better reflect the fundamental dynamics within conflict-affected communities by leveraging local power structures. Localization facilitates both the establishment and the adherence of peace initiatives to a set of procedures that ensure inclusivity. In the long-term, local peace initiatives have the potential to strengthen trust and collaboration, which are vital in transforming relations within and between communities. Equally important, local conflict resolution initiatives are unique in their design because they concentrate on meeting the needs and addressing the concerns of specific groups crucial for the peace process who are at risk of exclusion. 

Conclusion

The persistent failure of peace agreements in the Democratic Republic of Congo underscores the need to reimagine peacebuilding frameworks that prioritize local approaches. While external interventions bring resources and technical expertise, their top-down methodologies often marginalize the intricate realities of communities most affected by conflict. Local actors, by contrast, possess a nuanced understanding of the social, economic, and cultural dynamics underpinning violence, allowing them to craft solutions that resonate deeply with their contexts. Locally led initiatives are uniquely positioned to address the cyclical and fragmented nature of the DRC’s conflicts. They build on existing community structures, fostering inclusivity by engaging underrepresented groups such as women, youth, and marginalized ethnic communities. This participatory ethos not only enhances the legitimacy of peacebuilding efforts but also strengthens trust and collaboration, essential ingredients for durable peace.

Moreover, local approaches challenge the limitations of externally imposed frameworks by emphasizing relational over transactional peace. They focus on rebuilding fractured relationships, addressing root causes of conflict, and fostering a sense of ownership among communities. Importantly, these efforts are often more adaptable and sustainable, as they are grounded in the lived realities and aspirations of local populations. To achieve lasting peace in the DRC, international and regional stakeholders must shift from perceiving local institutions as fragile to recognizing them as indispensable partners. Supporting and scaling up community-driven peace initiatives offers a complementary pathway that aligns national and global efforts with the transformative potential of local agencies, paving the way for sustainable peace in the region.

Israel Nyaburi Nyadera is a lecturer at the National Defence College, a college of the National Defence University-Kenya. He holds the Swiss Government Excellence Postdoc fellowship at the Center for Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding, Geneva Graduate Institute, Switzerland, and was a visiting fellow under the India-Africa Security fellowship program at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, India. He has been a Global Africa young researchers’ fellow at LASDEL and a Charles E. Scheidt Fellow for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention, at George Mason University. His research interests include international security, conflict analysis and resolution and international development.

Billy Agwanda is a PhD Presidential Scholar at the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, George Mason University. He is widely published on conflict, development and security related areas. His interests include peace and conflict resolution, critical terrorism studies, international security, and foreign policy analysis.

Kinshasha MONUSCO Indian Peacekeepers is by MONUSCO Photos and is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.