The collapse of democratic aspirations across sub-Saharan Africa, exemplified by the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s troubled trajectory, is often met with a superficial diagnosis: a pervasive disregard for the law. While this is a visible symptom, framing it as the root cause is to mistake the effect for the disease. The deeper, more critical failure lies not in the act of breaking rules, but in the systemic inability—or deliberate design—to hold power accountable when it does. True democracy is not a state where laws are never broken; it is a system where breaking them carries inevitable consequences.
To understand this, we must first dismantle a common myth. In no democracy on earth do politicians universally and voluntarily adhere to every statute. The human factors of ambition, greed, and error are universal. The pivotal difference emerges in the institutional response. In robust democracies, allegations of serious legal violation—from corruption to abuse of power—trigger independent investigative bodies, a free press digs relentlessly, and an autonomous judiciary adjudicates without fear or favor. The system is designed with the expectation that power will be tested, and thus incorporates mechanisms for self-correction.
The 2016 Panama Papers scandal serves as a perfect global comparative case study. When leaked documents revealed a hidden world of offshore wealth and potential tax evasion, the responses varied dramatically based on institutional strength:
- Iceland & Pakistan: Prime Ministers Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson and Nawaz Sharif faced immediate, powerful institutional pushback—through public pressure channeled into parliamentary action and supreme court rulings—leading to resignation and removal from office, respectively.
- Democratic Republic of the Congo: Despite the implication of then-President Joseph Kabila and his family, the response was antithetical. Instead of an independent inquiry, the government spokesman warned the media against publishing names. No special commission was formed; no judicial process was initiated. The event was not a test of the law, but a demonstration of its impotence when facing entrenched executive power.
This contrast illuminates the core argument: The problem is not the act of disregard, but the absence of an effective institutional counterweight. As Ghana’s Jerry Rawlings insightfully noted, the goal must be to “build institutions so strong that, even if the devil himself came to power, it would be impossible for him to do what he wants.”
Here lies the “mimicry trap” into which many post-colonial states have fallen. They adopt the procedural shell of Western democracy—multi-party elections, a written constitution, a nominal separation of powers—without cultivating the underlying culture and independent authority of those institutions. Constitutions are copied, but the unwritten norms of judicial independence, legislative oversight, and civil service neutrality are neglected. The result is what scholars call a “hybrid regime” or “competitive authoritarianism“: it has the facade of democracy but operates on the logic of autocracy, where the executive co-opts or neutralizes the very bodies meant to constrain it.
Therefore, the persistent crisis in Congo and similar contexts is not a failure of law respect, but a failure of constitutional design and enforcement. Laws, especially those limiting executive power, must be drafted with the cynical but realistic assumption that they will be challenged. The focus must shift from hoping leaders will be virtuous to ensuring that vice is institutionally costly. This means:
- Designing for Enforcement: Creating truly independent anti-corruption commissions with prosecutorial power, securing judicial budgets and appointments from executive manipulation, and empowering legislatures with robust subpoena and audit authority.
- Moving Beyond Western Blueprints: The Western liberal model is not a monolithic or universally applicable template. Enduring democracy requires roots in local social, historical, and cultural contexts. This might mean innovating with forms of decentralization, integrating traditional governance structures, or developing unique models of checks and balances that resonate locally.
- Empowering Civil Society & Media: Strong institutions need oxygen. A vibrant, protected civil society and a free press are the essential external monitors that raise the alarm and create the political cost for illegality.
In conclusion, asking “Is disregard for the law a problem in democracy?” asks the wrong question. The right question is: “What kind of system makes the disregard of law politically unsustainable for those in power?” For Congo and nations on a similar path, the urgent task is to stop mimicking the form of democracy and start building its substance: the inviolable, interconnected institutions that transform legal text into lived accountability. The goal is not a nation of perfect law-followers, but a system where no one, especially the president, is a “free agent” operating with impunity.
Mayoyo Bitumba Tipo-Tipo
Writer & former United Nations International Civil Servant