Constitutional Change in the Democratic Republic of The Congo: A Risk for Democracy or a Path to Stability?

The debate over changing the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has once again returned to the political agenda. Supporters of constitutional change argue that the current constitutional framework, adopted in 2006, is outdated and no longer reflects the country’s current political and institutional realities. Some scholars and political leaders, including Professor Boshab of the University of Kinshasa, maintain that the constitution needs to evolve in order to address new governance challenges facing the country. Members of the Union Sacrée, the political coalition supporting President Félix Tshisekedi, have also argued that the current constitution was drafted in a specific historical context that no longer corresponds to present-day realities. According to them, the text was largely influenced by actors involved in the transition following the AFDL rebellion and the end of the war. They believe that the political, security, and institutional challenges facing the country today require a new constitutional framework better adapted to current conditions. Supporters of constitutional change also point to ongoing security challenges in the eastern provinces of the country, including armed conflict and alleged infiltration of national institutions by foreign actors from neighboring countries such as Rwanda and Uganda. From their perspective, a revised constitution could help strengthen state institutions and provide clearer mechanisms to address these issues.

However, critics strongly oppose the idea of revising the constitution. They argue that the Democratic Republic of the Congo does not suffer from a constitutional problem but rather from a governance problem. According to them, the country’s main difficulty lies not in the legal framework itself but in the behavior of political actors, who often prioritize personal or political interests over the public good. In this view, institutional weaknesses stem primarily from political practices rather than from deficiencies in the constitutional text. Critics also question who would ultimately benefit from constitutional change. They argue that proposals to modify the constitution may be driven by political interests rather than by genuine institutional reform. Some fear that revising certain provisions could allow the current leadership to extend its hold on power, particularly since the current constitution limits presidential mandates.

The Constitution of 2006 was adopted following the end of the country’s devastating civil wars and was intended to establish democratic institutions and stabilize the political system. One of its key provisions introduced presidential term limits to prevent the concentration of power that had characterized earlier periods of Congolese political history. The constitution also recognizes as Congolese citizens all individuals born in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo after independence.

A particularly important provision is Article 220, which protects several fundamental principles from constitutional revision. These include the republican form of the state, universal suffrage, the representative system of government, presidential term limits, judicial independence, and political pluralism. The article also prohibits any revision that would reduce individual rights and freedoms or weaken the autonomy of provinces and decentralized territorial entities[1].

According to critics, attempts to revise these protected provisions could undermine democratic safeguards and threaten institutional stability. For them, modifying such fundamental elements of the constitution could weaken the balance of power within the political system and increase political uncertainty. For this reason, the current debate raises an important question: would constitutional change strengthen governance and stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or would it instead create new political tensions and uncertainty about who ultimately benefits from such reforms?

Over the past decade, however, the constitution has increasingly become the subject of political contestation. In 2015 and again in later years, debates around constitutional change triggered major protests and political tensions. Many Congolese citizens feared that attempts to modify the constitution were primarily motivated by the political elites’ Kabila regime’s desire to extend their hold on power. Many people protested and died over this matter.  Today, the discussion has re-emerged in a different political context. Some policymakers and commentators argue that a constitutional change is necessary to modernise state institutions, improve governance, and address structural weaknesses in the Congolese political system. They argue that the constitution, written nearly two decades ago, does not fully reflect the country’s current political and socio-economic realities.

One of the arguments put forward by supporters of reform is that the constitution has created institutional inefficiencies. For example, overlapping responsibilities between national and provincial authorities have sometimes generated governance conflicts and administrative paralysis. Advocates of reform, therefore, claim that constitutional adjustments could improve institutional coordination and strengthen state capacity. Others argue that constitutional reform could help address broader governance challenges in the DRC. The country faces enormous development pressures, including rapid population growth, urbanization, environmental degradation, and persistent insecurity in eastern regions. From this perspective, a revised constitutional framework could help strengthen the state’s ability to respond to these complex challenges. However, critics remain deeply sceptical of these arguments. For many observers, the problem in the DRC is not the constitution itself but rather the weak implementation of existing laws and institutions, egoism, individualism and corruption. In other words, the country’s governance challenges are primarily the result of institutional fragility, corruption, and limited administrative capacity, rather than constitutional design.

This distinction is crucial. Changing a constitution does not automatically improve governance if the institutions responsible for implementing policies remain weak. In fact, some analysts warn that constitutional reform in fragile political contexts can sometimes create more instability rather than less. Another concern is the potential impact of constitutional change on democratic accountability. Presidential term limits, for example, have become one of the most important safeguards in many African democracies. Over the past two decades, debates around constitutional amendments have often been linked to attempts by political leaders to extend their time in power. Across the continent, such reforms have frequently triggered political crises, protests, and even violence. In several cases, constitutional changes have undermined public trust in democratic institutions. For this reason, many Congolese civil society organizations view any attempt to modify the constitution with caution.

Public perception also plays a crucial role in this debate. In countries where institutions already suffer from low levels of trust, constitutional reform can be interpreted as a political maneuver rather than a genuine effort to improve governance. This perception can further weaken the legitimacy of the political system. Rather than focusing exclusively on constitutional change, some analysts argue that the DRC should prioritize deeper institutional reforms. Strengthening judicial independence, improving administrative capacity, and increasing transparency in public institutions may have a more direct impact on governance than rewriting constitutional rules. Similarly, improving coordination among government ministries and strengthening decentralization policies could help address many of the governance challenges currently attributed to the constitution. These reforms would focus not on changing the rules of the political system but on ensuring that existing institutions function effectively.

Ultimately, constitutional reform is not inherently good or bad. In many countries, constitutions evolve to reflect changing political realities. However, the success of such reforms depends heavily on the political context in which they take place. In the case of the DRC, the key challenge is not simply institutional design but institutional credibility. Without strong, accountable institutions capable of implementing laws fairly and effectively, constitutional reforms risk becoming symbolic political exercises rather than meaningful governance improvements. For this reason, any debate about constitutional reform in the DRC should be approached with caution and broad public participation. Transparent dialogue involving political leaders, civil society organizations, and citizens will be essential to ensure that reforms, if they occur, serve the interests of democracy rather than narrow political agendas. The Democratic Republic of the Congo stands at a critical moment in its political trajectory. Whether constitutional reform becomes a path toward stronger institutions or a source of new political tensions will depend largely on how the process is conducted and whose interests it ultimately serves.

Jean Louis Yannick Omotonoko is a researcher and development practitioner specializing in governance, public policy, and sustainable development in Africa. His work focuses on political institutions, natural resource governance, and development challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa.