The conflict in the country now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been going on for decades. Historical grievances, governance failures, and social injustices have plunged this diverse land into ongoing turmoil.

Many analyses focus on mineral wealth and armed groups. Yet, a few, if any, explore the deeper historical and political dimensions of the crisis. For example, no one has looked into how historic Western involvement has affected it.

The governance deficit and state failure are the main causes of the current situation. These issues stem from these historic factors.

It has become a taboo; perpetrators of these heinous acts want the skeletons to stay buried; it is a long time, they say! Never has anyone as much as admitted that it was wrong, in the hope that time will bury the skeletons, soothe the scars, and ease the pain of yesteryears.

Colonialism and the interference of western powers in the post-independence governance of the DR Congo not only undermined the country’s sovereignty; it installed and maintained puppet regimes incapable of steering the nation towards true nationhood.

In the most familiar fashion and arrogance of the global north (when it's about Africa’s spoils, east and west become the global north), the role of European and other foreign mercenaries in Congo is rarely scrutinised.

The selected foreigners who interfere in the DR Congo always deflect attention, and they obfuscate the legitimacy of Congolese Rwandophones fighting for their survival.

Mercenaries, government-backed armed groups, and militias often use slave labour to extract minerals. Yet, they rarely get attention.

The conflict is nothing short of a struggle for self-determination in eastern Congo, which is as real an issue as the DR Congo is a country. The frustration with a DR Congo state that exists only in name is unfortunately not a Congolese Rwandophone issue alone. It is, it seems, a shared frustration among people of sound mind from the eastern DR Congo.

Many are not only frustrated by Kinshasa’s mismanagement of the country. They see the siphoning of resources to benefit politicians who hail from other parts of the DR Congo and the lack of development in their region. They see the DR Congo as a colony of Kinshasa rather than a national territory with a legitimate connection to the state.

The argument for self-determination isn’t based on tribalism or outside influence, despite what many think. It is not new or driven by outside forces. Instead, it is a genuine effort for governance that has served the region's people since before independence.

Western media and analysts often tell simple stories about mineral wealth and outside influences. They either fail, refuse, or can't face the deeper and uncomfortable truths about the DR Congo’s internal problems.

The governance failures of the DR Congo did not emerge in a vacuum. After the country became independent from Belgium in 1960, Western powers tried to weaken its sovereignty.

Patrice Lumumba, the DR Congo’s first democratically elected prime minister, embodied the aspirations of a Congo that was independent and free from Western manipulation.

His calls for genuine independence and resource control made him a target of the United States, Belgium, and their allies. Lumumba’s assassination in 1961 was not a calculated act of imperial sabotage. The West ensured that a leader who sought true independence would not govern.

Instead, they propped up a self-aggrandising puppet who ruled with an iron fist for over three decades, siphoning off wealth, repressing dissent, and ensuring that the country remained in a state of perpetual underdevelopment. It is western allies that laid the foundation for the governance failures that continue to plague the DR Congo today.

With Lumumba out of the way, the West eliminated any chance of the DR Congo developing into a strong, self-sufficient state. This pattern continues today. Successive governments in Kinshasa have not prioritised the needs of the people, especially in the east.

They have depended on Western support to keep power. Meanwhile, they have not tackled the key issues facing the Congolese people.

One of the most glaring hypocrisies in the DR Congo conflict is that European and other foreign mercenaries operate with impunity while the authorities deny Congolese of Rwandan origin the right to fight for their existence and nationality.

The involvement and use of foreign mercenaries in Congo are not new. In the 1960s, mercenaries from Belgium, France, and South Africa battled nationalist movements. They aimed to support pro-Western regimes. In recent years, the presence of foreign private military companies and mercenaries in the DR Congo has only increased.

When Congolese of Rwandan origin seek to defend their land and people, others label them as rebels, foreign invaders, or agents of Rwanda. This clear double standard raises important questions. Who gets to fight in Congo? Why are some armed groups seen as more legitimate than others?

The fact remains that the borders of the DR Congo were not drawn by the ancestors of its current inhabitants but by colonial powers that had no regard for the ethnic and historical realities of the region. Many people fighting today want to reclaim what European colonialists took from them when they drew the borders in Africa.

The governance deficit in the DR Congo stands out in the eastern regions, long neglected and ignored by Kinshasa. Discontented, non-Rwandophone intellectuals from Eastern Congo paint a bleak picture of a sense of detachment and frustration with the central government.

Many in the east pay taxes, yet see little to no enjoyment of the revenues extracted from their regions. The government in Kinshasa, riddled with corruption and inefficiency, takes their resources and redistributes them elsewhere while leaving the east in a state of disrepair.

Infrastructure in the east is almost absent. Roads are in terrible condition, public services are inadequate, and security is a distant dream. The government is tightening its grip on power in Kinshasa.

This move favours political elites, leaving pressing issues unattended. Concerns that could unite the people are sidelined in the scramble for control. It's a game of influence, with the citizens suffering the consequences. The result is a growing call for self-determination.

For many in the east, the DR Congo is a failed experiment. It is a state that exists in name but not in function. If a government does not serve its people, do the people not have the right to seek an alternative?

The notion of self-determination is not about dividing the DR Congo but about ensuring that people have a government that serves them. If Kinshasa continues to fail its citizens, the call for separation will only grow louder.

Western media and self-styled European "Africa experts" have played a significant role in perpetuating tired and simplistic narratives about the DR Congo conflict. Saying the conflict is only about mineral wealth is a tired, harebrained argument. It fails to acknowledge the complex history, politics, and ethnic issues involved. While resources play a role, they are not the primary cause of the conflict.

Western media often ignore the key analysis of how various state and non-state actors contribute to the conflict. Several countries support different armed groups, yet only certain factions label themselves as illegitimate, while others receive legitimacy based on political convenience.

The same analysts who criticise some groups for fighting often fail to consider the legitimacy of their cause.

This selective outrage only serves to aggravate the conflict. It reinforces a false narrative that some groups have the right to defend themselves while others do not. It dismisses legitimate grievances and maintains the status quo of governance failure, corruption, and external manipulation.

Africa and indeed the world cannot resolve the DR Congo’s conflict without addressing the fundamental issues of governance, historical injustices, and external interference. It is important to acknowledge how the West has destabilised the country since independence. We should also examine the ongoing presence of foreign mercenaries.

If certain groups are allowed to fight in the DR Congo, then why are others denied that same right?

Moreover, the voices of those in eastern DR Congo calling for self-determination must not be ignored. They are not mere agitators; they are people who have been systematically abandoned by their own government. They have a right to demand governance that serves them, and if Kinshasa continues to fail them, their calls for self-rule will only intensify.

Finally, Western media must abandon its condescending and simplistic narratives about the conflict. The assumption of narrative supremacy only exacerbates the crisis, as it obscures the real issues at play.

The DR Congo’s challenges go beyond minerals and outside forces. They include governance, justice, and the people’s right to decide their own futures. Unless these issues are resolved, the conflict will carry on. The DR Congo will remain divided and unstable, unable to achieve the hopes of its people.

The writer is an African scholar and seasoned commentator on economic and political affairs.