• Accueil
  • > Archives pour le Friday 27 September 2013

Archive pour le 27 September, 2013

Education.com

Une terre à semer… pour  un avenir radieux et une espérance.

Réfléchir sur l’éducation, c’est admettre une analogie qui acquiesce l’éducation comme un facteur latent de la construction de la société. Nul doute que, si la société est le symbole de la cohésion, elle est possible par les animaux(Aristote) que l’éducation a pu humaniser. Dans ce sens, former l’homme, éduquer l’être est au centre de toutes les préoccupations premières de la société, car c’est un moyen de créer une cohésion au sein des individus et d’assurer une prospérité. Pour Eric Weil, « l’éducation a pour but positif de donner à l’individu une attitude correcte dans ses rapports d’action avec les autres membres de la communauté ». Elle est l’outil de la socialisation qui fait quitter de l’état de nature vers un état civilisé. Par ce fait même, le but principal de l’éducation devient la capacité de former l’homme intégral qui soit utile à la société ; de l’élever vers une maturation positive. Un tel objectif poursuivi amène à comprendre que l’avenir d’une société est déterminé par le taux d’individus qui accèdent au système éducatif et la manière pour ses individus de s’approprier des problèmes de leur société en faisant des préoccupations principales. On peut alors, dans cette optique, affirmer que le vrai sens de l’éducation est l’analogie que l’on peut établir avec une terre à semer, à cultiver, à entretenir pour assurer un avenir. Par conséquent, tous nos foyers éducatifs (écoles, centre, nos universités) sont donc des pépinières méconnues mais qui deviennent des fontaines intarissables qui assouvissent les soifs et certains désespoirs de la société.

Il demeure en outre que la vraie éducation est l’objet d’une espérance. Comme ce champ de blé qui projette une certaine espérance, l’éducation est c’est par quoi on peut espérer une perpétuité des générations efficaces et efficientes pour maintenir le sens de la civilisation. Comme, un germoir que le jardinier entretient parce qu’il y a naissance de la vie, parce qu’il prédit une croissance, l’éducation porte une exigence d’un suivi sérieux pour que les fruits que celle produit soit justement la sève qui rende humides tous les désespoirs. Eduquer est par delà tout espérer pour le futur, dans le futur ; c’est prédire et prévenir pour ne jamais céder à la tentation de la perle de l’évangile. Cependant, une telle vision idéale qui semble être un principe, risque de nous plonger dans un fantasme pendant que la réalité présente un autre visage.

Les sociétés malades de la peste (la corruption), des antivaleurs et des délires qui inquiètent l’avenir de l’univers, à nos jours, ce sont celles-là qui ont sacrifié la joie d’espérer par l’éducation. Si le rôle de l’éducation est de former l’homme intégral, ce sujet est un homme conscient, porteur des valeurs, du savoir, porteur de la vie. Si aussi, toutes les civilisations ne se valent pas, c’est qu’il y a soit décroissance et croissance à une période donnée de l’histoire d’une civilisation. On peut extraire de cette thèse que de l’état actuel de nos sociétés en général par rapport à cette intégralité de l’éducation est en crise. Car chacune de nos sociétés a bien des choses à se rapprocher. L’Occident, par exemple a perdu le sens de certaines valeurs morales. Cette perte accuse un certain relativisme moral. Des questions bioéthiques, du tournant du phénomène « sexe libre », et le flux médiatique montrent qu’il y des lacunes au sein du système éducatif occidental. La pure rationalité et le désir de découvrir davantage le font sombre dans une caverne dont les conséquences qui en découlent sont des obstacles de l’espérance. Les problèmes écologiques aussi peuvent relever de ces lacunes d’une éducation qui manquent un certain sens moral, une certaine éthique. Par ailleurs, la crise au sein de la société africaine peut être posée à deux niveaux. Premièrement, il y a une certaine contagion occidentale qui remet en cause certaines valeurs qui doivent figurer dans notre système éducatif, en l’occurrence la décence de l’habillement. Notre mode de vécu lui-même est un copier-coller. Deuxièmement, si l’occident brandit encore un certain rationalisme, c’est en vue de l’invention, en Afrique non seulement que le niveau de l’éducation est en train de baisser, mais aussi elle fait rarement preuve d’une certaine créativité des méthodes pour son développement. Le système éducatif a perdu son premier sens de construction de la société ; il devient un poison dont l’antidote est d’abord une question de mentalité. Les écoles, les universités sont devenues de lieux de transaction de toute sorte de pratiques, sexuelles, agnostiques. La corruption devient le critère de sélection des élites. Bref le fruit produit par nos écoles n’est à pas la taille de défis de la société.

En résumé, du point de vue théorique, l’éducation est le premier moyen qui rend possible la cohésion et le progrès de la société. Sans elle, il n’y a pas de société civilisée, il n’y a pas lieu d’espérer la transmission d’une certaine éducation. Cependant, la réalité nous amène à comprendre que les différents systèmes éducatifs ont perdu certains éléments qui permettent de penser une société où toutes les dimensions, intellectuelles, spirituelles, morales et sociales,  sont prises en compte, où elles sont dans une synergie insécable. Il faut pour cela les repenser. Mais la question est de savoir comment y arriver, car les antivaleurs sont devenues la mode normale qui dicte la conduite de notre société.

Marius MUFUTA

Parties involved in DRC Conflicts.

In conflict situation, besides the question what is the issue about? There are two other key questions: Who is who in this conflict? And how this conflict escalates?   The former question seeks to determine actors who interact in the conflict and the latest analyses conflict process or dynamics. The understanding of those elements helps to set up   the complexity of the issue and on how parties involved in the conflict play their role. In Lulofs and Cahn words, we distinguish three parties Primary actors, secondary party interested third party. As dynamic, conflict escalates through stages to stages which include latent conflict phase, initiation phase, balancing of power phase, balance of power phase, and disruption phase (Lulofs & Cahn, p. 75).

There are many types of process in conflict. I have chosen the competitive Conflict Escalation Cycle to explain one of the most complex situation conflicts in Africa, DRC conflict situation. From my little perception of this complex situation, I have drawn an analytical tool through what my task will be based.

On the conflict going one in DRC,   there are many actors whom we can gather in three parties.

Primary parties which include the DRC as state, DRC Politicians, so called M23 (former CNDP), and Rwanda. In Mars, 23th[1] 2009,   DRC have signed a peace agreement with CNDP militia (Congrès National pour la Défense du Peuple) in Goma in order to end the war which has begun in 2007 in North and South Kivu. CNDP, today M23 accuse the Congolese government to ignore or to abstain this agreement, and as consequence they have decided the resumption of the war.  Furthermore, the post electoral conflict is perceived as triggering event of this war. DRC Politicians are divided and the left wing (opposition) does not recognize Joseph Kabila legitimacy. In the other hand, DRC accuses Rwanda to interfere in Congolese political and economic life and empower the greedy militias in east in procuring to them armies. This grievance was born out by a report made by MONUSCO[2] experts.

The secondary party is those who have been affected by the conflict, the east population who are victims of diseases, displacement (refugees), sexual violence, and poverty. The interested third party is more complex.  We have Superpowers (USA, France, Russia, Belgium, etc.), IMF and World Bank, China, Multinational Cooperation. The Superpower (none expressed), Multinational cooperation (none expressed) are escalators in this conflict, they have been accused to empower the greedy militia with  Rwanda and Uganda playing the linker  role,  in order to exploit the minerals. At the same time, together with the IMF and World Bank they are fighting against DRC because of the famous China-Congo contract which they judge as a form of economic cooperation on a capitalist basis, without aid and charity. What Chinese got by a “right way”, other superpower have to do by a violent way?

In this conflict there is a joker, we don’t know the really presence of UN in DRC. Congolese opinion is that:  MONUSCO safeguard the interests of Superpower (western states).

 

 

 

 


[1] From where the Idiom M23 emerged in order to specify the non respect of this agreement .

[2] Mission des Nations Unies au Congo

Let go for an other topic

A response to Editors

The history of People is not what scholars have related and perceived but what those people have experienced within time and within outcome: advocacy to sell the Good image of DRC over the world.

On March 2013, the Review of African Political Economy has published its 40th volume and 135th Number. The number was dealing with a special issue: “neither war nor peace in the democratic republic of Congo (DRC): profiting and coping amid violence and disorder”.

I have read with benefit some articles and I have perceived the real desire of writers to help readers to understand merely what is going one in DRC. They try to explain how people perceive the nowadays situation in DRC and the social transformations occasioned by more than 15 years of continuing political and social violence. For most of them, these conflicts do not have a singular logic, but result from multiple local conflicts, as well as outside interventions.

However, what have been pointed out merit some arrangements in order to sell a good image of DRC through the world. I would like to take one article and get into in discussing. But I have found better to respond to editors, because, the way they present there letter is like, if you said DRC, it like you mean directly hell. Within this analysis seems to be wrong.

At the first glance, I was trying to understand the title. I went throughout a question: Is there a third option between war and peace? It could be better to say neither conflict nor peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and then we could be able to understand. The absence of war is not an absence of conflict. The formation of a conflict, they way it is resolved, and even if ceasefire, are part of conflicts. Congolese are looking some solution not to ending war but conflict.

You have stressed the difficulties of resolving the complex and interrelated conflict in DRC. This is because many factors are linked such as political and economic issues, national and international context, and ‘issues of identity, ethnicity and nationality. I was expecting you to be more specified instead of getting in generalization. That’s why I want to counter against the issue of identity or ethnicity which is not a mainstream cause of violent conflicts and which, by the fact, leads to war. We can find such divisions in the political area due by the membership to a party and as it is all over the world. But I think that the diversity of tribes or nationality avoids almost civil war in DRC. Is there any ethnicity in DRC which is looking for an integrated position? The discussion on Banyamulenge (Rwandophone question) or Tutsi is an international problem related to 1994 during the genocide. Hueling put it up in right way: the unique question of identity connected to the genocide, is charity or generosity of DRC to International community and it deals with rules of international laws of refugees. If we can perceive this identities struggle on this window, perhaps we can be near the truth. Rwandophone question, and to be fair in this analysis, which appears as sunrise grievance hide a strong bridge to our neighbours who are looking some reason to spoil our resources and our sovereignty, but not as longer as root cause of conflict. Please to consider this aspect and find out, strictly, the real causes ‘of wars in DRC. Those small ethnic conflicts cannot lead to bloodshed of Hundreds of thousands of Congolese. I would like to replace this question of identity to the question of patriotism. And to get into conclusion that DRC’s wars (conflicts) are managed out of the Congolese and then the grievances to Congolese will focus on the lack of patriotism. you have underlined it : “instead, it seeks to show the ways in which some Congolese people, particularly, in the east of the country, find strategies to survive, cope and in some cases even to profit from, the liminal socio-political environment in which they find themselves” I spent like eight months in this part, from August 2012 to May 2013, and I have realised that the first look  at Goma or Bukavu cannot let know that here people are fighting, because buildings are risen, there is life. If you are new, you will get lost. The stand is that, some eastern population are training in a system which themselves don’t know the outcome.

Yes, you are right; to address this issue that the M23 occupation causes civilians and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, but actors involved don’t mind. Poor people are starving. Murison(2002) argues that “the political turmoil in eastern DRC has created hundreds of thousands of temporary and long-term displacement of persons, who are frequently in dispute with established residents over farmland, fuelling new conflicts that often have an ethnic dimension.” So far, I see in this analysis further causes of another conflict in DRC based on land.

“The violence associated with the Congo wars has caused social upheavals throughout the country, but particularly in central and eastern regions” is there any places in the central region were war took place? I don’t Know, perhaps you have other hidden historical information of this Country. For my concern, the central regions of Congo, if you have read the ‘really history’ of this country,  you will directly realised that, besides the so-called war of liberation led by Laurent Desire Kabila and always by superpower, central part is one of the peaceful area of DRC. People are not longer fighting and international actors have no significant interests, besides diamond. They have found another method to nick.

You have concluded that DRC is collapsed state and a society plagued by widespread poverty in the context of war. This statement sound like there is no life. Some years ago, we were a developing country and the last report of our economic wealth fare shows us that our economy is increasing. We know those settlements are according to a Western view. The situation of DRC is not a fatality since we are bundled by our resources. Really that we are our own actors of our development, unfortunately foreign actors want to do this duty for us. They have made a utopian line to follow which one is out of our deep aims. This behaviour justifies what you have expressed, but with less causes, the gap or breakdown of formal relations between state and people. The government is not working in order to satisfy the needs of people but to be admitted in the international standard of development.

DRC is not an extremely insecure place. This is just to set a negative view of DRC. Yes there is a kind of insecurity but in some places, it seems to me normal as over the world. Just have a quick look at DRC map and its superficies, you will realise that, it’s like 15 percent of the DRC which is in violent war and in insecure situation. You are right, because it is a national affair, but you don’t  have to generalise when you want communicate particular issue and if sometimes you don’t have in your take all information. A part from that area, some parts of east, DRC is mostly an oasis where everybody wants to have something to say, to buy, to sell and to steal[1]. Perhaps you have to blame God for him give us those resources which powerful countries and neighbours change with Congolese blood. This blood wills complaint one day. We can lie to a people, destroy a culture, but it is difficult to efface the memory of this people or this culture

I got to conclusion that, your historical understanding of DRC is bit controversial. Five years after the independence, Mobutu came on power in the way that we know, but establishing a strong Kingdom. Whatever the relation with USA, Modern society is determined by cooperation in the international system. Each country uses what is in possession for his interest.  The security offered by the USA was not a gift but an agreement. (Mineral – Security). In addition to this, the relation was more profitable to the USA. Nowadays relation is not a kind of agreement but a USA invasion on DRC resources, and other actors. As political analyst, you know well that the main cause of conflict in DRC is not local but international and I have proposed below an analytical tool of to map the DRC conflict.

“The achievement of national independence did not establish a political system because of the resistance of Congolese politicians and by some Western states. Whatever the outcome of independence, the right of self determination is nonnegotiable. It is greater to every people to be free and poor and more than to be slave and rich. The way that you argue shows the will to blame Congolese people who were at that time looking for their dignity. Let go straight on the issue. Could we blame at the same time Belgian authorities and Congolese politicians? You did the latest and I will do the former. Our ‘father’ did not strictly prepare any Congolese to deal with political, economic and social affair following the international criteria.  The instinct of paternity is still today in their Blood.  We want to fish ourselves. It is fair to say that our politicians have to be blamed not because they behave in fact like predators but rather because they are marionette of outsider decision maker in order to protect their authority and leadership : “Every power comes from outside” that is “to connect every power comes from God”.

For a brief history, we had ten years of peace (1965-75) throughout Congo before Mobutu dictatorship which benefit to bipolarity system during the Cold War Union Sovietic and USA.   The Congolese opinion about the term of Mobutu took two sides:  his first years were grateful and second years become diabolical. I was deeply surprised to notice how you described DRC brief history. I was wondering why you didn’t mention the death of Laurent Desire Kabila (didn’t you see in him as nationalist and as a saviour of DRC?) You have pointed out and blamed the nature of the Global and all inclusive Peace Agreement signed in South Africa in December 2002. In your understanding, it’s failed to resolve the underlying causes of the conflict and rewarded those who sought power via military mean by contrast, the creation of transitional system 1+4 was the peaceful agreement at that time and the way to begin with a democratic process in DRC. The upshots of this agreement are relievable:  they are still war but only in one area, at east contrary before the GIPA. Conflict is a process and dynamic. Its resolution is also a long process. It is not helpful for us scholars to get in hurry in conclusion. After time, our analysis can be revealed wrong. Some conflicts are protracted but not intractable; that is the case with the east of DRC.

Could you remember the number of actors involve in the Global and Inclusive Peace agreement in December 2002? And could we compare to the current negotiation in Kampala? The impact is less than this one of 2002. On 2002 we were talking about a dialogue between Congolese (sons of a country were fighting for a leadership question). Today’s dialogue contains many parties and other primary actors are not sometimes cited. In your further analysis, I would like you to name in three words the negotiation since 2012. Many issues form this agreement are to be blamed, and don’t want to come over that. You have pierced out that “the deeply flawed disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) initiative did little to achieve an effective integration process or even ensure that former and serving soldiers were properly paid, fed and housed”. For that we need to be blamed, even if today the question is current, soldiers are not properly paid, you are right. However, please to notice that a history cannot be related after few years since the end of the event. Some issues are hidden and will be revealed many years later.  What we need for the current situation in DRC is not a quick historical analysis, but to provide solution through the causes of this conflict which are not effectively appeared.

 

Furthermore, one of your assertions dropped from Clark, Prunier, Reyntjens on the failure of Mobutu by a politico-military movement, the “Alliance des Forces Democratiques pour la liberation (AFDL), has to be considered. AFDL dependent on and partly directed by external powers, primarily Rwanda, Angola and other neighbouring states. The situation didn’t yet change. Some of those parties we chased away Mobutu, are still acting in the east part, and did the same with disputed electoral victories of 2006 and 2011 which have not brought to power a government with strong internal support by people, as you have mentioned.

The social dysfunction is not due to the interaction of poverty, state collapse and war-related violence. The mainstream cause is a scarcity of good governance. The government have to set up an economic policy worthy which must go through the privatization of some public sectors such as Insurance (SONAS), SNEL, REGEDISO, INSS… where the state has failed

Challenging representations of war and violence.  

I get those particular summits of illegal export of valuable minerals and the horrific level of sexual violence as a misperception of DRC dilemma. Sincerely and friendly, I want to say that you came across your analysis. Conflict in the DRC is undoubtedly linked to the extraction of natural resources and various other spoils, but this does not mean such resources were the primary cause of war. With pleasure, I disagree strongly with you. And a question can be asked to you: to whom you belong. A fact to be considered, there are more than 10 regions in DRC, in those regions, there is no war, only some ethnic troubles or conflict, which seem to me normal in country of diversity of ethnic identity. We can think together:  After the Cold War, mineral become the interest of many superpowers and multinational cooperation. This is based on the need to make nuclear weapons for some, and for increasing their capital. Superpowers became like foolish because of the find material for those aims. Related to the DRC, the part where there is not any wars (unless Lubumbashi where there is not violent, but cold war), there is no uranium, gold no coltan, no diamond and so one, just conclude…  this reason cannot be minimised. On the top of causes, Mineral resources cause is the first and then others come beyond. I was satisfying you have mentioned this point but the way you expressed were unless unbearable. In addition to the discussion, this allegation, “furthermore, the assumption that those involved in these economics are either greedy militia or profit-maximising businessmen overlooks the fact that the majority those involved in the trade in precious minerals continue to be motivated by coping and survival”, explains the bad will of businessmen to avoid Congolese parties to evolve in this extraction of precious minerals. That is the same way their former fathers did. And you will never forget that your statement sum in right way the capitalism system and the global system were parties involved in the cooperation are not equal, but they are obliged to cope with. Poor have to stay poor till they will die.

Coming together, a part from the really fact of violence, the violence against women tends to be sometimes a cultural injustice to withdraw money from those so called women predator. There is a media lynching and propaganda made by grassroots initiatives against gender-based violence and some NGOs in order to get money for surviving. We can almost see on that a rise of another injustice. There are victims. But violence against women is not either basis or the special issue of war.

Conclusion: DRC war is a business War. For foreign actors, DRC is a big and free hole of resources, everybody can use for himself.


[1] I made a journey  by bus from Bukavu to Bujumbura for a  short holiday.  I was amazing the structure of relief and in the same times I was imaging what was under the soil. I was proud to be Congolese and think God. I get in conclusion those people who yearn  us are right…

Isanganoarrdc |
Rcdazazga |
Avec Vous Vivre Meythet |
Unblog.fr | Créer un blog | Annuaire | Signaler un abus | Mistercouac
| Guillaumerobaa83
| Ladnwey2012