The protagonists of statism have long held up the State as the sole guarantor of public order and integral development [1]. Experience has shown, however, that such a conception of things is neither defendable nor viable. Without suggesting the canonization of the opposite of statism—anarchism [2]—this article draws inspiration from the experience of self-aid groups in rural Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in central Africa to argue that integral development and flourishing are possible even in the absence of the state.

I develop my analysis in three steps. First, I describe two creative initiatives that have improved the lives of the Sankuru rural population in the central DRC. Second, I consider the basis for the “life-sustaining” activities. Lastly, I note some critical implications of these initiatives for the social and economic development of a local population.

Without falling into oversimplification, I can say that a rural population is a group of people whose lives have two characteristics. This population is on the margins or outside of the perimeters of modern technology, including electricity, running water, cellphones, televisions, and the internet. The lack of modern technology may constitute a cluster of hardships. However, rural people live an intense communal life. Everybody knows everybody. There is a very high and strong sense of community togetherness. This experience of the community and its natural beauty make its existence bearable despite the lack of modern technology. For example, the celebration of life by the children and youth in this context is cadenced by ordinary activities that sustain existence. These activities incorporate walking to school, going to church, going to draw water for household needs, fishing, climbing fruit trees and picking mangoes and guavas, and playing and learning moral and cultural values by the light of the moon. Adults are involved in activities such as farming, hunting, building houses, or repairing roofs. Indeed, these activities require constant effort and financial resources. As a result, in the absence of the state to provide social services to the population, rural people have imagined creative communal initiatives to help them cope with the challenges of their existential experience. The ensuing paragraphs describe two of these initiatives. They are called, in the Otetela language, Dikongo and Dikelemba.

How can we understand the Dikongo initiative? Simply put, Dikongo means teamwork. This teamwork focuses most on growing crops, which, along with raising livestock, constitutes the main source of income for the rural population of the Sankuru region. This region stretches over tropical forests below the equator and the savannahs.

Although these forests and savannahs are very arable, the local population experiences enormous difficulties in cultivating them. All year long, people have to cultivate the soil with their bare hands using tools such as hoes, machetes, spades, and axes. They sow a wide variety of crops, especially rice, millet, maize, cassava, beans, groundnuts, potatoes, yams, pistachios, tomatoes, squash, pumpkins, and banana trees. In addition, because livestock (pigs, goats, and sheep) are straying around the village, people have to walk for two or more hours to grow their crops. This “commute” for six days a week and the onerous work in the fields are very draining. Because of these constraints, people do not work in large fields that could provide for their subsistence and income needs. It is under these circumstances that people imagined Dikongo as a solution to their predicament.

It is worth noting that Dikongo is a voluntary team effort. People who get along organize themselves to work together during the different stages of crop cultivation. A group may work together in clearing, felling trees, sowing seeds, weeding, harvesting, and transporting produce from the field to the granaries of their homes in the village. In addition, to maintain order, justice, and active participation, the group always chooses a leader. He or she sets the schedule, determines the hours of work, and allocates an equitable portion of tasks to each member of the group. Each member provides food and drinks when the group works in his or her field. In such groups, there is always an impromptu or natural emcee who entertains other members with jokes and songs [3]. Laughter, music, and team spirit thus reduce the stress of exhausting work. The speed of the work by the group makes it possible to cultivate at the rhythm of each crop season. The high number of people in a team allows each member to have a large field, which he or she could not have done when working alone. All these facts thus promote a good harvest, which is synonymous with personal and social well-being. The following paragraphs describe the second activity that helps the Sankuru local population survive.

In addition to Dikongo, people in the Sankuru region rely on the Dikelemba initiative to earn some income. Dikelemba means an exchange of funds among members of the voluntary group. This exchange is done in a weekly or monthly rotation. Henceforth, my analysis equates Dikelemba’s activity with “mutual bank.”

To fully appreciate this practice, my analysis briefly evokes the macabre economic situation of the DRC. It is a truism that the DRC is a geological scandal [4]. However, this country is among the poorest countries in the world. The DRC constitutes today the epitome of the paradox of plenty [5]. In June 2017, the Congolese Catholic Bishops sounded the alarm. The title of the message of their fifty-fourth ordinary annual meeting is very evocative: “Le pays va très mal. Debout, Congolais!” [6]. Concerning the socio-economic situation, these bishops note the following facts: “For the vast majority of the Congolese population, living conditions have become more than precarious. This is evidenced by undernourishment, the inability to access basic health care and schooling, the accumulation of salary arrears, and ‘the explosion of youth unemployment fostering social unrest, banditry, and the recruitment of young people in the innumerable militias.’ Water and electricity supplies have become erratic in urban areas, while utility bills continue to rise”.

In addition to the description of this lamentable situation of the population, the Congolese Catholic bishops also indicated some major causes of this misfortune. As they observe, “corruption, tax evasion, and embezzlement of public funds have reached worrying proportions at all levels. Manifestly abusing their power, a group of compatriots grants themselves enormous economic advantages to the detriment of the collective well-being.” Things have not improved, according to the recent appraisal of these bishops [7].

Faced with this status quo or impasse, the Sankuru local population has had to imagine an alternative economic solution. Dikelemba has been that option. As mentioned above, Dikelemba is “an exchange of funds among a group of people in rotation. This group can agree to give a fixed amount of money to each member, either weekly or monthly. This amount (fund) may thus help the beneficiary of that week or month to meet his or her urgent needs.”

From my perspective, Dikelemba tries to solve the demands of three areas of the lives of the local people of Sankuru. These areas are children’s schooling, health, and housing. The subsequent paragraphs contextualize these issues to allow a proper appreciation of the value of this initiative by Dikelemba.

The whole province of Sankuru does not have a system of scholarships, grants, financial aid, or student loans. Therefore, parents have to pay three times the school fees of their children in primary school and high school. Students pay these fees on the first day of classes. If the parents are unable to pay the school fees for the third installment, their children are expelled from school altogether and thus lose that school year. This fact explains the high rate of illiteracy. In these circumstances, parents are forced to choose some children who can study and ask others to help them with the field and household work. This selection does not often favor girls. In addition, at the college level or the university, students pay twice during each academic year, and the same principle of “no money, no studies” is strictly observed. Each student must therefore pay the two installments to ensure the validation of the academic year.

In the field of healthcare, treatment depends on the availability of money. The Congolese health system has no health insurance. In this context, each time a patient goes to the dispensary or the hospital, he must bring an amount of money to be consulted by a nurse or a physician. There is not much room for negotiation at this level. For example, a nurse can easily say to the patient, “If you are sick, give the money, and we will treat you.” However, the disease is always an unwelcome guest. When it attacks a person, it does not care whether the person has money or not. This experience of living without money and knowing that illness can come at any time is a permanent nightmare for the rural population.

In addition, unlike the urban environment where developer companies build decent houses and sell them to individuals, men in the villages build their houses from scratch with their bare hands. Their houses are built with poles, shrubs, lianas, rafters, palm bamboo, and tree leaves or savannah stubble. The materials are sought in the savannah or forest, which can be located far from the village. Bringing them to the village is another layer of burden that must be borne when committing to building a house in the village. This is why an Otetela adage says, “Paka wee ambosombo ko wee mbika loodu,” that is to say, “You have to be already bewitched to decide to build a house.” The meaning of bewitchment is the heroic courage it takes to bear the weight of hard work and the price of building a house in the village. This is why, in one of His parables, Jesus teaches his listeners that the construction of a tower requires great discernment beforehand. He says, “Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work, the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.”

In the same perspective, another maxim says, “Paka wee ndjateta lowala lo elungi ko wee mbika loodu,” that is, “One must slap oneself in the face to commit to building a house.” The slap represents the motivation, courage, and firm commitment that one must have when thinking about building a house in the village. The need for serious preparation beforehand is explained by the fact that, in addition to the painful work and the price of the construction, there are also the requirements of maintenance to avoid the collapse of the walls, which can lead to the inhabitants’ deaths, as well as the requirements of the almost constant renewal of the roof to avoid the long sleepless nights caused by the roof linking during the long rainy season, which lasts almost ten months each year.

The option of Dikelemba is, therefore, a pragmatic solution to the great challenges of education, healthcare, and house building. With the small savings that they make when they receive their funds from Dikelemba, people can send their children to school, get medical treatment for themselves or family members in case of illness, and build decent houses with fired bricks and metal sheets. These semi-durable houses are healthier and safer. In addition, they spare their owners the stress of linking roofs and the almost daily maintenance of houses.

The previous analysis has just described two main activities that militate in favor of the flourishing of the local population of Sankuru. They are Dikongo (teamwork) and Dikelemba (mutual bank). In the final section of this article, my analysis will delve more deeply into the implications of these Dikongo and Dikelemba initiatives. In the ensuing section, my reflection focuses on the basis for these activities.

Following the description of the practices of Dikongo and Dikelemba, the underlying foundation of these activities preoccupies my analysis. From this perspective, I draw insight from Ann Swidler’s sociology of culture to pinpoint the Otetela culture as the basis for the initiatives of Dikongo and Dikelemba. 

After setting aside the Parsonian theory of values, the Weberian model of how ideas influence action, or the Marxian model of the relationship of ideas and interests, [8] Ann Swidler uses the “tool kit” or “repertoire” metaphor to show how a culture inspires and mobilizes people for actions. She proposes that “we think of cultures as ‘tool kits’ or repertoires of meanings upon which people draw in constructing lines of action. Cultures inculcate diverse skills and capacities, shaping people as social actors, to be sure – by providing those tools for constructing lines of action, not by molding them to a uniform cultural type” [9]. For the purposes of this paper, Swidler is right to affirm that, as a “‘tool kit’, culture encompasses symbols, stories, rituals, and worldviews, which people may use in varying configurations to solve different kinds of problems” [8]. In light of this account, I acknowledge that the Otetela culture has provided proverbial wisdom that brings about the resourcefulness of the Sankuru people and galvanizes their resilience. A few examples of some salient Otetela proverbs that are the basis for Dikongo (teamwork) and Dikelemba (mutual bank) make the present analysis revealing. 

The first proverb says, “Heene lakole, ko wee nde la poso,” that is, “If there is nobody to peel fruit for you, then eat it with its skin.” This adage stems from an account of a relationship between someone who serves and the one who is served. The servant in the household context could be a parent, a spouse, a sibling, a manservant, or a maidservant. The habit of being served does not promote cooking skills, for example. As a result, in the absence of the servant, the person who needs to eat fruits may either starve of these fruits or eat them with skin. From this perspective, this proverb discourages indolence and overdependence on other people or institutions for personal flourishing. Positively speaking, it prompts people to take personal initiatives and actions to promote their well-being. 

The second proverb states, “Kaake ko wee nde la anya mindo,” that is, “You can eat your food even without washing your hands.” This proverb reminds us of the fact that dependence on others involves constraints and servitude, whereas personal ownership instills a sense of freedom from any restrictions. For this reason, personal ownership generates fulfillment. This proverb thus teaches people to work hard to assure ownership, which in turn guarantees freedom in property management.

The third proverb advises that “Woola wa lombo ko wee ndeka otoko,” that is, “Use even dust in the absence of the yeast.” The Otetela people make yeast from palm bamboo for a specific dish of cassava leaves. As a result, if this yeast is lacking, people can still make the specific cassava leaf dish by finding an alternative yeast from palm bamboo. The advice of the proverb is that people make no excuses to carry out what is necessary for life. In other words, this proverb discourages surrender, resignation, or defeatism. It encourages people to be purposeful and creative.

The fourth proverb asserts that “Ayoo akavu la ndjala,” that is, “The procrastinating person died from hunger.” The misfortune of death befell that person because she postponed any necessary activities that had to nourish her human organism. This proverb bluntly shows that procrastination is deadly. It challenges people to live out the Carpe diem ethic. Carpe diem means to seize the day. Today is the moment to do the necessary work that sustains life.

The fifth proverb instructs, “Toheke momba senge lo lohenda la sango da dina,” that is, “Do not forget to keep grains in the basket because of the promise of the harvest.” This proverb dissuades people from presumption and overconfidence about a better future, which no longer impels them to work to improve the present. Keeping foresight, this proverb highlights carefulness and practical wisdom in managing subsistence needs.

The sixth and last proverb of this series affirms that “Kele kala tondo heele mba,” that is, “The next palm grove does not necessarily have ripe palm nuts.” As is the case for most proverbs, the wisdom of this adage comes from the experience of someone who went in search of palm nut bunches. When he arrived at the first palm grove, he found only a small bunch of lesser quality. He decided to go to the second palm grove, expecting to find lots of good-quality bunches. When he got there, he found nothing. He immediately went back to look for what he had seen in the first palm grove. To his surprise, this bunch was gone. Another person picked it up. The poor man thus returned to the village, disappointed and empty-handed. The lesson from this anecdote, which is now encapsulated in the above proverb, is the call to make good use of what is at hand or available and transform it into something worthwhile and excellent. It refutes utopianism in favor of realism.

The above six Otetela aphorisms contain a valuable work ethic that has inspired the initiatives of Dikongo (teamwork) and Dikelemba (mutual bank) that promote a modicum of flourishing for the Sankuru population. These proverbs point out the wisdom of Otetela culture, which refutes several vices and inculcates virtues and values conducive to the success of work ethic. These vices and negative attitudes include indolence, dependence, surrender, resignation, defeatism, procrastination, presumption, overconfidence, and utopianism. However, the values and positive attitudes that constitute the bedrock of a good work ethic in favor of Dikongo and Dikelemba encompass the spirit of initiative, praxis, hard work, freedom, a sense of ownership, purposefulness, creativity, proactivity, promptness, foresight, practical wisdom, and realism. These positive attitudes are indispensable to a population that experiences a breach of trust by the state.

Unlike Max Weber, who claims that “the state is an association that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence and cannot be defined in any other manner,” [10] I agree with Philip Selznick, who conceives of the relationship between the state and the population in terms of social covenant [11]. The State of the DRC has violated this covenant when it does not provide social services to its citizens, including the Sankuru people. To illustrate, Jay Carney’s analysis notes the dysfunctional nature of public services in the DRC. As Carney observes, “Whether monitoring elections, providing the lion’s share of healthcare and educational services, or providing civic education through the church’s extensive grassroots network of small Christian communities, the Catholic Church has an unparalleled social influence in the twenty-first-century Congo. Whatever its ambiguities, power has migrated from state to church” [3].

I retain two main ideas from this observation. First, it corroborates the claim that the DRC’s state is not providing social services to the rural population. Second, this observation also underscores the two critical life issues that Dikongo (teamwork) and Dikelemba (mutual bank) practiced by the Sankuru people try to address: healthcare and education.

On the whole, the gist of this section consisted of showing how the proverbial wisdom of the Otetela culture has served as the basis for the resourcefulness and resilience of the Sankuru people in the pursuit of their flourishing in the absence or indifference of the Congolese State. In the last section of this paper, my analysis delves more deeply into the implications of the initiatives of Dikongo (teamwork) and Dikelemba (mutual) for social life and rural development.

What implications for social life and rural development might one draw from the foregoing analysis of the two characteristic initiatives of the Sankuru people? In the following paragraphs, I underline several implications.

The first implication of Dikongo (teamwork) and Dikelemba (mutual bank) is the revelation of the fact that working as a team makes work easier, faster, and more efficient. The above description of Dikongo points out the hardships and exhaustion involved in farm work. Teamwork reduces these constraints. It is worth noting two Otetela adages that foster this idea of working together. One adage says, “Tshoyi fumbe,” that is, “To be alone is servitude.” A lone person does not have many options to lean on. This lack of options that are affordable to her is commensurate with servitude. From this perspective, this adage urges against the mentality of Cavalier solitaire (solitary cavalryman) and recommends people work as a team. Another adage says, “Oluyi mbole dihonga,” that is, “A group of people is more powerful than a giant.” People learned this lesson from the experience of the hunting of big game (like antelope) by the colony of red ants. When these ants attack their prey, they swamp over it, bite it, and penetrate its orifices. The whole process leads to the agitation, gasping, irritation, exhaustion, and asphyxia that eventually kill that big game. Similarly, when a group of small fighters surrounds a giant and swamps him, they make him lose control of his fighting tactics. They thus overwhelm him and defeat him. This experience is also relevant to agriculture. For example, no matter how strong a giant is, the field that he can clear on a day cannot exceed the field cleared by a large group of small people. In addition, the efficiency of the work is due to the character of teamwork and the different skills of the members of the group. 

The second implication of Dikongo and Dikelemba revolves around the responsibility ethic involved in both teamwork and mutual banking. These activities advise against any attitude of laziness from the members of the group. They rather promote hard work, creativity, and resourcefulness. In a sense, the golden rule is applied in this context [12]. If one member of the group expects other members to work hard and well in his field, he is also expected to do likewise on others’ farms. Similarly, if he cannot tolerate any delay in receiving financial funds when it is his turn, he must always be ready with his contribution when it is other members’ turn.

It is worth emphasizing here that working as a team has transformed the conception of work left by the scars of the Belgian colonial regime in the DRC. In the Sankuru region, when someone asks another person for a few services once, this person reacts by saying, “Dimi buu fumbe,” that is, “I am not a slave.” By protesting in this manner, this person refuses to be subjected to treatment similar to the plight of her forefathers and foremothers, who worked tirelessly under the yoke of Belgian colonizers. Patrice Lumumba, the Congolese national hero, movingly described the intensity and ruthlessness of this yoke. In his speech during the ceremonies of the celebration of the DRC’s independence on June 30, 1960, Lumumba stated,

We are proud of this struggle amid tears, fire, and blood, down to our very hearts, for it was a noble and just struggle, an indispensable struggle if we were to put an end to the humiliating slavery that had been forced upon us. The wounds that are evidence of the fate we endured for eighty years under a colonialist regime are still too fresh and painful for us to be able to erase them from our memory. Back-breaking work has been exacted from us in return for wages that did not allow us to satisfy our hunger, to decently cloth or house ourselves, or to raise our children as creatures very dear to us. We have been the victims of ironic taunts, insults, and blows that we were forced to endure morning, noon, and night because we were blacks [13].

Unlike the barbaric attitude that Lumumba forcefully denounced, the wisdom behind Dikongo (teamwork) redeems the meaning of work as an authentic human vocation. This rediscovery of the dignity and value of work in the Sankuru region concurs with the teachings of Pope John Paul II. As he observes, “It must be emphasized, in general terms, that the person who works desires not only due remuneration for his work; he also wishes that, within the production process, provision be made for him to be able to know that in his work, even on something that is owned in common, he is working ‘for himself’. […] The Church’s teaching has always expressed the strong and deep conviction that man’s work concerns not only the economy but also, and especially, personal values. The economic system itself and the production process benefit precisely when these personal values are fully respected” [14]. In other words, work has both instrumental and constitutive values in human life. The instrumental dimension is understood in the sense that work helps a person attend to different needs in her life. The constitutive aspect of work in human life is the fact that being a human person involves working. Work is a human value per se. Pope John Paul II is thus right when he states, “Thus it is necessary to proclaim and promote the dignity of work, of all work but especially of agricultural work, in which man so eloquently ‘subdues’ the earth he has received as a gift from God and affirms his ‘dominion’ in the visible world” [14].

The third implication of Dikongo and Dikelemba refers to the promotion of social harmony. As Desmond Tutu views it, “Harmony, friendliness, and community are great goods. Social harmony is, for us, the summum bonum—the greatest good. Anything that subverts or undermines this sought-after good is to be avoided like plague. Anger, resentment, lust for revenge, and even success through aggressive competitiveness are corrosive of this good” [15]. Unlike people who engage in aggressive competitiveness, the Sankuru people, who, by their own accord, work together or exchange services, live in peace. They enter into a covenant with each other. This covenant manifests the African personalism of Ubuntu. As Desmond Tutu perceives it,

People with Ubuntu are approachable and welcoming; their attitude is kindly and well-disposed; they are not threatened by the goodness in others because their own esteem and self-worth are generated by knowing they belong to a greater whole. […] “A person is a person through other people,” a concept perfectly captured by the phrase “we.” No one comes into the world fully formed. We would not know how to think, walk, speak, or behave unless we learned it from our fellow human beings. We need other human beings in order to be human. The solitary, isolated human being is a contradiction in terms [16].

This consciousness accounts for the mobilization of the Sankuru people to join their efforts through Dikongo and Dikelemba initiatives for the sake of their human flourishing. 

The fourth implication of Dikongo and Dikelemba builds on the precedent implication and considers how these initiatives favor and nourish fellowship and community life [17]. I previously showed how teamwork involves laughter, music, and sharing food. These moments are invaluable features of community life. Only friends can laugh, sing, or eat together. This friendship and communal life promoted by Dikongo and Dikelemba constitute an inestimable alternative to a world characterized by indifference and loneliness.

The fifth implication of Dikongo and Dikelemba concerns the availability of financial funds. It has become almost impossible to live in the modern world without dealing with money. That is why Pope John Paul II acknowledges that “labor is, in a sense, inseparable from capital” [14]. Seen from this perspective, Dikongo and Dikelemba allow the flow of cash to attend to the basic needs, including healthcare, clothing, education, food, and housing. Not meeting these needs amounts to great violence to human life. In the sociological account of violence, Johan Galtung considers misery as violence that negates well-being needs and therefore frustrates human flourishing [18]. However, when the well-being needs are met thanks to Dikongo and Dikelemba initiatives, the Sankuru people move toward the threshold of human flourishing, which would be commensurate with Pope Francis’ idea of integral human development. He sketches this conception of integral human development in terms of “essential material and spiritual goods: housing, dignified and properly remunerated employment, adequate food and drinking water, religious freedom, and, more generally, spiritual freedom and education” [19].

The sixth and last implication of Dikongo and Dikelemba relates to ecological consciousness. This issue mainly concerns Dikongo (teamwork). As mentioned above, agriculture in the Sankuru region is hard and exhausting. As a result, the local population sometimes has recourse to a non-ecological practice called yengela. It consists of setting the forest on fire without limiting or controlling it. This practice achieves the objective of substituting the laborious and wearisome farming process with bare hands. Unlike this ecologically blind practice, Dikongo allows people to work normally. In this context, awareness campaigns about the ecological crisis in the circle of people involved in Dikongo have the chance of instilling in them an ecological conscience that will enable them to live out an ecological culture while they strive to afford their flourishing [20].

As a case study, this article has shown how, without the apparatus of the DRC’s government, self-aid groups have emerged as vehicles of rural development in the Sankuru region. This case study has underlined the salience of Dikongo (teamwork) and Dikelemba (mutual bank) initiatives. This analysis proceeded in three steps. First, I described two creative initiatives: Dikongo and Dikelemba. Second, I pinpointed the Otetela culture as a tool kit from which the Sankuru people drew the wisdom to carry out these “life-sustaining” activities. Lastly, I noted some critical implications that these initiatives encompass for the social and economic development of a local population. First, Dikongo makes farm work easier, faster, and more efficient. Second, the activities of Dikongo and Dikelemba overcome laziness while fostering hard work, creativity, and resourcefulness. Third, Dikongo and Dikelemba favor peace and social harmony among those who work together. Fourth, they nourish fellowship and communal life. Fifth, they make possible the flow of cash to meet basic needs. Lastly, they are ecologically responsible. 

In light of this inference, I only need to make two interrelated observations. First, this case study reveals the relevance and necessity of the local approach (bottom-up) to social and economic development. I thus agree with Martha Nussbaum when she reveals the contrasting priorities between the statesmen and the population. She observes that “leaders of countries often focus on national economic growth alone, but their people, meanwhile, are striving for something different: meaningful lives for themselves” [21]. As a result, instead of parachuting paternalizing models of development in rural communities, decision-makers and policymakers are challenged to dialogue with rural people and their cultures to draw development perspectives that honor their dignity and values and that can adequately promote and sustain their integral well-being and flourishing [21]. Second, people and institutions committed to promoting the human flourishing of rural populations can see in Dikongo and Dikelemba initiatives appropriate models of rural development that respect their human dignity and their specific cultures. Such initiatives need to be supported by development programs to allow rural people to “acquire the skills necessary to promote greater social and economic independence and political participation” [21]. Thanks to Dikongo and Dikelemba initiatives, the Sankuru rural population has started to experience that life is worth living.

1. Bilgin P. Beyond Statism in Security Studies? Human Agency and Security in the Middle East. The Review of International Affairs. 2002; 2: 100-118.
2. Hennacy A. Autobiography by a Catholic Anarchist. New Jersey: Libertarian Press. 1954.
3. Carney J.J. “‘The Bishop Is Governor Here’: Bishop Nicholas Djomo and the Catholic Leadership in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” In Baba G. Otetela (ed.), Leadership in Postcolonial Africa: Trends Transformed by Independence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.2014;97-122.
4. Trefon ST. Congo’s Environmental Paradox: Potential and Predation in a Land of Plenty. London, UK: Zed Books. 2016.
5. Pelin E. From Riches to Rags – the Paradox of Plenty and its Linkage to Violent Conflict. Goettingen Journal of International Law 3. 2011; 1: 473-493.
6. “The country is doing very badly. Get up, Congolese!” Message from the 54th ordinary plenary assembly of Bishops members of CENCO. National Episcopal Conference of Congo. Kinshasa, DRC: Editions of the General Secretariat of CENCO. 2017.
7. “For credible elections: Congolese people, wake up from your sleep!” 60th plenary assembly of the National Episcopal Conference of Congo (CENCO). National Episcopal Conference of Congo. Kinshasa, DRC: Editions of the General Secretariat of CENCO. 2023.
8. Ann S. Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review. 1986; 51: 273-286.
9. Ann S. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. 2001.
10. Gerth HH, Mills CW. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, New York: Oxford University Press. 1946;253.
11. Philip S. The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community. California: University of California Press. 1994.
12. International Theological Commission. In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 2009.
13. Patrice L. Lumumba Speaks: The Speeches and Writings of Patrice Lumumba, 1958-1961, ed. Jean Van Lierde, trans. Helen R. Lane. Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Company. 1972; 221.
14. Paul II J. Laborem Exercens - Encyclical Letter on Human Work. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 1981; 15.
15. Desmond T. No Future without Forgiveness. New York: Doubleday. 1999; 31.
16. Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Believe: The Words and Inspiration of Desmond Tutu. A Blue Mountain Arts Collection. Colarado: Blue Mountain Press. 2007; 3.
17. Alasdair M. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Third Edition. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 2007; 263.
18. Johan G. Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research. 1990; 27:291-305.
19. Laudato Si – Encyclical Letter on Care for Our Common Home. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. 2015.
20. Schaefer J. “Converting to and Nurturing Ecological Consciousness – Individually, Collectively, Actively.” Theology Faculty Research and Publications 680. 2018;136-153.
21. Nussbaum MC. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2013; 1-3.