August 9, 2006 - On July 30th, the Congolese masses demonstrated their desire to live in peace and bring about fundamental change in their country. On that day, the Congolese were the winners, 80 percent of the approximately 25 million registered voters turned out to vote. However, in the struggle for power and the pursuit for the mineral wealth of the Congo, the masses may lose in the end.

Although the participation of the Congolese in the election was stellar, the ballot counting has been anything but exemplary and does not compliment the grace and dignity demonstrated by the Congolese population during the vote. Reporters have witnessed and reported the burning of ballots at a couple voting centers in Kinshasa, responsible for a quarter of the ballots cast in that city. Human rights advocates and observers have witnessed mass dumping of ballots outside counting offices in the east of the country. Human Rights Watch says foreign observers’ work in eastern areas like Ituri is being severely restricted. The BBC reported "There were also concerns over voting numbers that do not add up, a lack of verification of original ballot papers and an increasing number of null votes." The Carter Center said each day new problems arise that "chip away" at the integrity of the voting process.

Indications are that the vote is split between two rivals, current president, Joseph Kabila Kabange backed by the Party for Reconstruction and Democracy (PPRD) but ran as an independent and Jean Pierre Bemba of the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo (MLC). It appears that Kabila has captured the eastern provinces with strong showings in North Kivu and South Kivu, and Bemba, the Western provinces and Kinshasa. Should the final results, to be published by August 20th and made official by August 31st, hold true to early reports neither Kabila nor Bemba is expected to win an absolute majority and a run off will occur on October 29, 2006. With 32 candidates in the presidential race, many experts say it will be impossible for anyone to win in the first round without cheating. Click here to read article!

As shocking as it may seem, many of the political candidates were caught off guard by the July 30th elections. They were convinced that the elections would be delayed because of the plethora of irregularities in the organizing process. They firmly believe that the elections, organized in an unfair and inequitable fashion, are merely an instrument for legitimizing the Kabila rule and its client relationship with Western governments and corporations. Many diplomats and experts dismiss such a contention as sour grapes or a product of the Kinshasa rumor mill, known as Radio Trottoir. However, in academic and policy circles where these matters are spoken about frankly, the claim that Western governments are using the elections as an instrument, a blunt one mind you, to legitimize Kabila, are well founded. Professors Paule Bouvier and Pierre Englebert, in their prescient and insightful analysis in a July 26th Foreign Policy article entitled “Congo’s Implausible Democracy,” argue that "Indeed, the International Committee In Support of the Transition (CIAT)—which includes the United States, the European Union, and South Africa—has significant influence in the country. Unfortunately, its members have not alleviated doubts about their intentions. They appear to prefer stability over democracy and have done little to conceal their preference for the incumbent, 35-year-old Joseph Kabila."

Professors Bouvier and Englebert said that the CIAT chose stability in place of democracy. Western diplomats and investors back the incumbent as the best chance for stability. Rene Nolevaux, an executive with Katanga Mining, a Canadian company, said "The best thing that could happen is Kabila being elected." In the end, Western governments and corporations may get neither stability nor democracy.

A number of stubborn facts exist to support claims that the elections were organized in a structurally skewed fashion in order to keep Kabila in power.

• The CEI with the backing of CIAT established a ridiculously short election schedule - Imagine being given 30 days to run a campaign in a country the size of Western Europe with non-existent road and rail infrastructures. Only candidates with access to private jets and a large financial war chest could effectively campaign throughout the entire country. The election schedule was set in accord more with the United Nations Mission in the Congo (MONUC in French) timetable than the establishment of a consensus among political candidates that would increase the chances of the results being accepted by all sides. Now, even after the Congolese have demonstrated their desire for a democratic process, the entire undertaking may be in jeopardy should the losers not accept the final results.

• A $50,000 non-refundable deposit to run for president in a country where 80 percent of the population lives on 30 cents or less per day - Surely, this is a formula to ensure that no grassroots representation is present in the race for president of the nation.

• The intransigence of the CEI and CIAT in NOT re-opening the registration rolls for the supporters of Etienne Tshisekedi - When the leading pro- democratic force in the country for the past two decades, Etienne Tshisekedi's UDPS decided to participate in the process, his militants should have been allowed to register. The denial was based on the argument that it would take too long to register UDPS supporters – take too long for whom - surely not the Congolese people. Granting such a request was the least deference that could have been given to a leader and a party that had fought non-violently for over two decades to bring about democratic change in the Congo. Imagine Poland having elections without Lech Walesa after Soviet rule or South Africa having elections without Mandela after Apartheid. Deference should have been made to the UDPS, in spite of the so-called idiosyncrasies of Mr. Tshisekedi.

• The failure to ensure equal funding for the candidates and the lack of transparency regarding the source of funding for the major candidates - The Kabila government and others who had access to the state trough since 2001 took full advantage of this access by using state funds to finance their political campaigns. The CEI and CIAT made little mention of this practice. See Carter Center report.

In spite of the enormous structural obstacles erected by the international community, the Congolese are clearly saying they will not lay down and have another leader imposed upon them through external machinations. The West really does not understand the profound sentiment running through the cultural arteries of the Congolese society that patently rejects any form of neo-colonial imposition.

If the Congolese opposition had not learned that the West respects and gives deference to military might, they have learned it now. This explains in part why the opposition at the last minute voted in droves for Jean Pierre Bemba, while clearly understanding that he is not a democrat by any stretch of the imagination. They figured that with Bemba's military strength and their 'street" heat they would be a formidable force against the Kabila government and the international community. This is how the pro-democratic forces in the Congo have decided to play the loaded deck dealt by the international community.

After realizing the elections were going to take place on July 30th, word went out throughout Kinshasa and the opposition arterials to rally behind Jean Pierre Bemba. The anyone-but-Kabila-campaign swung into full force. Interestingly enough, the Kabila-Bemba scenario was the one lobbied for by Louis Michel, then Belgian Foreign Minister and the United States during the inter-Congolese dialogue in April 2002 in Sun City, South Africa. The peace talks were interrupted with a proposed side deal between Bemba and Kabila with the backing of the West. This triggered the formation of the Alliance to Safeguard the Intercongolese Dialogue (ASD), who called for a comprehensive peace deal and eventually prevailed. The difference today is that although it is Kabila-Bemba, there is no talk about co-habitation among Congolese. One can rest assured however that the West is lobbying for such a scenario as a way of easing tensions and installing Kabila peacefully. It does not seem likely however, that the political landscape will readily facilitate such a scenario. The biased and inequitable manner in which the elections have been organized by the CEI and CIAT have totally alienated and radicalized the opposition forces. Presidential candidate, Oscar Kashala observed that if Kabila wins in the first round "there will be blood on the streets," It is clear that the political landscape has been radicalized. The extreme politcal climate lands squarely at the feet of the CEI and CIAT and their refusal and failure to facilitate two critical steps in the organizing of the elections:
1. Go the extra step to make sure that the UDPS was a part of the process.

2. Facilitate a dialogue that would establish a consensus among the political parties PRIOR to the elections. It seemed as if the CEI and CIAT gave priority to a fixed date rather than the legitimacy of the process. In the end, the Congolese people may lose once again and not experience the peace and stability for which they voted. One element is evident, no amount of words and platitudes from the CEI and CIAT will convince the political class that Kabila won the election in the first round.

The Congolese firmly believe that the European military presence in the Congo is there to defend and buttress the installation of Kabila as president. It did not go unnoticed that the Catholic Church cited the military presence as one of its concerns when it issued its statement against the manner in which the elections were organized.

Opposition forces fear that should the West be successful in installing Kabila, this will usher another period of dictatorship. This contention or concern is not without merit. If the Kabila government was able to assassinate and jail journalists, expel an international journalist, monopolize the state media, harass candidates, arbitrarily incarcerate the staff of presidential candidates, suppress a peaceful demonstration with lethal force and carry out other forms of intimidation (See Carter Center report) while the world was watching, surely the authoritarian practices will become worse when the attention and focus leave the Congo. Professors Bouvier and Englebert support this contention when speaking of a Kabila presidency. They note "In short, the DRC is likely to revert to the predatory and personal rule that has characterized so much of its history."

It really is no surprise that the process produced two "strongmen." The entire election process was designed for those who have had access to state resources and directed them to their election campaign. Although the West set-up this process in large part to legitimize Kabila, in the end, the Congolese in Kinshasa and other western provinces saw this process as an opportunity to peacefully remove Kabila from power and made a calculated move against the West. The often maligned Congolese pro-democracy forces understand the geo- political game and are playing their hand to the best of their abilities.

The question that remains is, whose interests will prevail, those of Western governments and corporations or those of the masses of the Congolese people?