DR Congo’s national dialogue reaches a turning point as legal guardrails define its path
A decisive moment for the national dialogue
The national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo has reached a decisive turning point. A Paris-based lawyer has outlined a clear framework that could determine whether the initiative becomes a genuine breakthrough for peace and national cohesion or risks drifting into institutional ambiguity. The key, he argues, lies in treating the dialogue strictly as a political mechanism for consultation and pacification—not as a parallel institution.
Legal boundaries that must not be crossed
Me Ben Touere, a lawyer at the Paris Bar and a doctor of public law who teaches at Sorbonne Paris Nord University, explained that the dialogue can help forge compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reforms, and the functioning of the state. However, he warned that it must never become a second parliament, a parallel government, a political court, or a de facto constituent assembly.
“The national dialogue announced by President Félix Tshisekedi must be designed as a political mechanism for consultation and pacification, not as a parallel institution,” he said. “It can help seek compromises on peace, national cohesion, institutional reforms, and the functioning of the state. On the other hand, it must not become a second parliament, a parallel government, a political court, or a de facto constituent assembly.”
From consensus to constitutional action
According to the legal expert, any political conclusions reached during the dialogue can only produce lasting legal effects once they are translated by the institutions that the constitution empowers to do so. He outlined a sequence: legislative reform must go through Parliament; public policy falls to the Government; constitutional questions belong to the Constitutional Court; and matters reserved for the direct decision of the people must be submitted to them in the forms prescribed by law.
This chain—dialogue, consensus, action by competent institutions, constitutional review, and, when required, popular consultation—ensures that the process strengthens rather than undermines the state’s prerogatives.
The sovereignty principle
Me Elenga also pointed to Article 5 of the Constitution, which 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 for themselves,” he stressed. The ultimate goal, he concluded, should be to reform and consolidate the state through dialogue—not to create mechanisms that weaken or share its prerogatives.
