The Sun-City deal.
Nineteen months of their lives were taken by the waltz between airports and negotiating tables. At their end, a sigh of relief left Sun-City; The inter-Congolese dialogue finally offered the DR Congo an unprecedented regime called 1 + 4. On April 17, 2003, sworn in as vice-presidents of Joseph Kabila: Abdoulaye Yerodia Ndombasi representing the Kabila’s administration, Arthur Zahidi Ngoma for the Congolese Opposition, Azarias Ruberwa for RCDGoma – a rebel movement supported by Rwanda – and Jean Pierre Bemba Okra for MLC – rebel movement backed by Uganda.
The Geneva deal
Fifteen years later, the Congolese opposition meets in Geneva to choose a candidate for the opposition. Several months of suspense finally find a way out; Martin Fayulu officially becomes the common opposition candidate on November 11, 2018. He must play the role of Lamuka spokesperson and, if he ever wins in the elections, he would remain at the head of the DRC for two years, during which, he would revise the constitution and thus allow Bemba and Katumbi, invalidated by the Constitutional Court, to return to business.
The similarity of the two deals
The surprise of these two deals is their similarity. In Sun-City, they cheated the father and in Geneva, mischief prevailed over the son. In the first as in the second case, the smallest common denominators strike the pawn of the heavyweights: Arthur Z’ahidi Ngoma as head of the unarmed opposition in the 1 + 4 administration and, Martin Fayulu in Geneva as the common candidate of the opposition. And again, in Sun-City as in Geneva, the shadow of Kofi Annan hovers; Moustapha Niasse, his special envoy, witnesses the signing of the agreement in South Africa and his ‘’ Kofi Anan Foundation ”is the sponsor of the Geneva agreement.
It is neither the weight of the Union of Congolese for Peace [UCP] nor that of the commitment to Citizenship and Development [ECIDé] that made Zahidi Ngoma and Martin Fayulu the elected members of Sun- City and Geneva, but rather what Fayulu called himself “a strategy”; which in reality was a ”tribal vote” or a political dishonesty.
What would Etienne Tshisekedi have done?
On June 8, 2016, members of the Congolese opposition jostled in Genval near Brussels, in Belgium. Everyone is looking for a place in the spotlight of the news. The real and the fake rub shoulders. The gathering of opposition forces is born. Objective: To compel Joseph Kabila to respect the constitution and to leave power at the end of his second term. This war has two formidable weapons: Intelligence – instructive knowledge – so as not to deviate from the constitution, and, wisdom – experimental knowledge – not to burn the Congo.
In view of the current political landscape where the FCC has a majority in the parliament and Senate, any politician respectful of the constitution of his country would opt either for cohabitation or for coalition. Etienne Tshisekedi would have gone to Geneva if he had guarantees like his Félix had from his allies and partners. After the plot was discovered, he would have disassociated himself with Lamuka as he did with the Sun-City deal. Winner of the presidential election, he would have privileged peace and would have protected Kabila as he had proposed to Mobutu, to Laurent Désiré Kabila and also to Joseph Kabila for an honorable exit by the spirit of Genval. Voices are said to have been raised to criticize his stance as is the case against the son today. “We are from the father and the son betrayed his spirit by coalitioning with Kabila and the FCC.” They criticized the father for refusing to include at other times the caciques of the MPR in his government of national union after the Nsele negotiations. Today, they accuse the son of delaying the
exit from the government because he insists not to put ” new wine in the old bottles. ” They cried treason when the father visited a convalescent Mobutu in Nice,France. They say they have been betrayed by the son for having united with Kabila. Yet the son follows in his father’s footsteps: Democracy and the rule of law.
A race of those who condemn the son and claim to be the father’s men was born. The truth remains stubborn; those who have never carried the father in their hearts will never love the son.