--- title: "Why Are There TWO Congos?" description: "Let me ask you a question: have you ever heard of the Congo? That place filled with rainforests, precious metals, and more AK-47s than a Soviet weapons factory.\n\nSlap bang in the middle of Africa, and with its enormous size, it's pretty hard to miss. The Congo. The mysteries of this fascinating landscape have captivated people for generations, from its extensive biodiversity, to its different languages and cultures, to its political upheavals in the modern era.\n\nNow, those of you with your thinking caps on might have asked \"which one?\" when I mentioned the Congo. And that's a fair question to ask, because there are actually two nations in this region that both go by the Congo name. Well done you.\n\nBut why is that?\n\nBecause as far as we can tell, these nations have a shared history, language, culture, and countless other things that join them at the hip. The only thing really separating them today is a border on a river that shared both countries' names.\n\nSo, join us today as we investigate the story of how one became two. How the world altered their trajectories forever, and how unimaginable amounts of blood were spilled at every step along the way.\n\nThis is what happens when for over a century, people prioritise greed over lives. It ain't pretty.\n\n## River, People, Kingdom\n\nSo, what the heck is a Congo anyway? Well today it's the name of two separate nations in sub-Saharan Africa, the larger Democratic Republic of the Congo to the East, and the smaller Republic of the Congo situated to the West. Both nations share the basin of the Congo river, which splits the countries apart. In fact, both capitals, Brazzaville, and Kinshasa respectively, are within just mere kilometres of each other, and as the crow flies, the shortest distance between the two over the river is under a kilometre and a half. As capitals cities go, that's extremely unique, they are even geographically the closest pair of capital cities on earth today.\n\nBut that's today, these dual namesakes have been bound by the concept of the Congo for a lot longer than that. The name Congo comes from the Bakongo, a Bantu tribe who live in the region. Now both these countries today have a huge number of different ethnic and tribal groups, but Bakongo was the one that stuck. The region was known as the Kingdom of the Kongo until 1885, and it was a powerful pre-colonial empire comprising of both modern Congos, and parts of North Angola. These boundaries like in a lot of pre-colonial places were quite fluid and so some claim that the Kingdom of Kongo was even larger still. As early as 1000 BC the peoples of this area engaged in the local and long-distance trading of raw materials such as iron, ivory, and copper. It was through this commercial activity that the empires managed to expand politically and economically. When the Kongo Kingdom was first incorporated into the burgeoning global capitalist economy, it was through contact with the Portuguese and the selling of slaves. But little did the locals there know that this decision would lead to over a century of suffering.\n\nThe Congo as a region is defined by its extraordinarily varied geography. At the heart is the Congo River itself, and heavy rainforests cascade over the landscape. But it's not all jungle, there are savannah plains, mountainous regions, flooded forests, and more, all contributing to the incredible biodiversity of the terrain. It's also a place of extremes. It is a land of immense rain and thunderstorms, with the equator scything through the middle. It is a land of both spectacular wealth beyond your wildest dreams and simultaneously one of the poorest regions on the entire planet. Its sacred grounds have seen so much bloodshed and violence over the past century and a half alone, that it seems inextricably linked to exploitation, corruption, and violence.\n\nAnd this is largely the case for both Congos. Yes, everyone knows that the DRC is a basket case at the best of times. But the smaller Republic of the Congo has its own very similar dark history to share that reinforces the problems present today.\n\nAnd both nations are very similar. They share history, geography, culture, and demography. They share a border, a river, and a pair of capital cities that could be called a single massive city if not for the border. They share language, with the lingua franca of the day being French, with many other languages being prominent like Lingala. Both are heavily Christian with a healthy mix of Protestants and Catholics, as well as comprising of other cultural and traditional tribal religions too.\n\nSo that begs the question, if they're so similar, why are they two countries, and not one? What has separated these otherwise highly similar nations with a lot in common from each other?\n\nWell, to answer that, we need to explore the history of these territories, and see that whilst both were ravaged by colonialism, it sent them down two very different paths.\n\n## The Depravity of Greedy Men\n\nLet's start with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, known as Congo Kinshasa or just the DRC.\n\nOur story begins in 1884. The European scramble for Africa had just begun. At a conference in Berlin that year, differing European empires carved up Africa on a map and sold it to the highest bidder, ensuring a legacy of violence, pillaging and poverty that still affects the majority of the continent today.\n\nAnd it is at this conference where the Kingdom of Kongo would be divvied up, as the largest territory to be plundered by greedy colonial hands. The Kingdom of Kongo at the time was also in decline as conflicts divided the region internally. But soon it would be divided by external forces. Despite the shared culture, languages, history, and even kingdom, the region known as the Congo would be split in two right down the Congo river itself. The territory on the Northern side of the river, what is now Congo Brazzaville, was to be governed by the French, whilst the Southern side, now Congo Kinshasa, was to go down a slightly different path. It would be controlled by Belgium.\n\nWell, not exactly, it would actually fall under the ownership not of the Belgian government, but its monarch, King Leopold the second. In the 1870s, Leopold the second hired Henry Morton Stanley to map and establish Belgian outposts along the Congo river. So, when it was time to divide and conquer Africa, they were already there. 15 years later he would convince other European powers to give him the territory at the Berlin Conference by claiming sovereignty over the Congo river's basin, and by claiming he would help the natives and combat slavery.\n\nNeither would turn out to be true.\n\nBecause you see, this king was a greedy man. He named the entire area now comprising of the DRC as the \"Congo Free State,\" meant to encompass free trade in the region, but given the depravity to come, the name feels more like a cruel joke. Almost nobody here would be free. Not with Leopold calling the shots from thousands of kilometres away. The trading post Stanley had set up in 1881 was called Leopoldville after all, to everyone that mattered in global affairs, the Congo was all his.\n\nAnd in this bizarre colonial situation, where a single person had control over a territory so large who answered to nobody but himself, Leopold took full advantage. With the industrial revolution in Europe well underway by this stage, there was a booming trade for natural rubber to use in things like machines and vehicles. Rubber was pretty scarce by comparison to the high demand, as it could only naturally grow in certain climates from rubber trees or vines. The Congo Free State just so happened to be one of the few places where rubber wasn't just present, but bountiful, there were rubber vines everywhere.\n\nAnd so, like a gluttonous leech, Leopold tried to suck the Congo dry. He set up a system that would siphon money and resources like rubber back to Belgium. Over time, he took over completely, rendering the population as little more than serfs by the 1890s.\n\nTo enforce his will, Leopold's own private army, *La Force Publique*, made up of African conscripts and European officers, which answered only to him, enforced a brutal regime of exploitation and suffering. Strict rubber quotas were slapped down, and if the population couldn't meet them, there would be hell to pay. People were kidnapped by force from villages and used as hostages, with the army threatening to kill them if rubber quotas were not reached.\n\nDeath was a common punishment, but a mercy by comparison, as a grotesque economy of mutilation would soon arise in the Congo. *Force Publique* soldiers were told to account for every bullet they used to control the Congolese, and if they did kill someone, they were told to cut off their right hand as proof of death, showing that bullets hadn't been wasted on things like hunting. But this created a demand for severed hands, which quickly grew out of control. The petrified locals often couldn't meet their rubber quotas, and to avoid collective punishment and harbour favour, they would be required themselves to find severed hands to bring as proof that they were fighting off others in place of their quotas.\n\nBut hands were easier to harvest than rubber, leading to villagers and locals attacking one another and cutting off their hands, or cutting them off of dead bodies, to desperately present to the soldiers. This enforced a strict cycle of terror and control over the population, ensuring that they would be too busy fighting each other to ever rise up. But that was not all. Beatings and lashings were common, rape was endemic regardless of gender or age, and even cannibalism occurred. The depravity and brutality of the Congo Free State represented a phenomenon closer to true anarchy than most will ever experience. It was effectively a prison colony. Diseases and famine were widespread and uncontrollable, the population were little more than slaves by another name, and the violence perpetrated on the Congolese was one of, if not the most brutal colonial administrations and forced labour regimes in all of human history.\n\nAnd for what? Rubber, money, and greed. Estimates of how many died during this time vary a lot both up and down. Some believe the death toll was as high as 10 to 15 million people. Some put it as high as 20 million. That is between one and a half, to three and a half Holocausts. Attempted genocide wouldn't even begin to describe it if that number was even close to accurate. Although this stat comes from historian Adam Hochschild, and is heavily disputed. Many also believe the number could be as low as just over a million. A staggering loss of life still, all the same, but as you can see the range is truly massive.\n\nThe situation was so bad, that when people began learning about what was going on across the world, there was a concerted international effort to put pressure on King Leopold to transfer his personal rule of the Congo to Belgium. This is at the start of the 20th century remember. People were doing horrible things to indigenous people all over the world at the time, and the incredible levels of racism back then led to people not exactly caring much about the plight of the average African. And yet, Leopold's Congo was so depraved, so vile, so evil, that one of the earliest ever humanitarian movements came out of it as a result that saw considerable popular support. In 1908, he finally transferred power, after 23 long years of atrocities and suffering. King Leopold the second then did the decent thing and died a year later in 1909. He would never answer for his crimes.\n\nBut just because the Congo was now in Belgian hands and not Leopold's, didn't mean that the lives of regular Congolese got much better. Fresh from a generation of torment and trauma, it now had to contend with just being a regular imperial colony. Belgium followed a paternalistic approach to colonial rule, portraying the Congolese as child-like and unable to govern themselves, a sentiment dripping in the racism of the time. In reality, the Belgians did little to truly develop the region or bring the people out of poverty, the Congolese had just swapped one authoritarian system for another. Instead of a King's decree, it was politicians' pens and paper.\n\nBut you see, these politicians were greedy men.\n\nAnd Belgium continued to strangle the Congo for every last drop of what it could sell. A wide selection of goods from the mining sector would soon be added to the Belgian inventory, including gold, diamonds, copper, tin, cobalt, zinc and even uranium. The class of the *Force Publique* was replaced with a system known as the *évolués*. These were an economically and socially privileged class that was thought of as more \"Westernized.\" In short, the colonial regime invented a purely African subculture that was incentivised to betray the interests of the broader Congolese community. Whether it was Kings and soldiers, or politicians and laws, the end result was the same. Plunder the resources, whilst you divide and conquer the populous, who suffer with nothing.\n\nBut the Congolese grew increasingly frustrated with their lot, stuck under the thumb of Brussels. A growing resistance to Belgian colonial rule was growing by the 50s, resulting in the Leopoldville riots of 1959. With the shadow of the Congo Free State still in living memory for many, and with a growing national identity catching the momentum of independence movements elsewhere in Africa, Belgium was forced to the negotiation table. And in June of 1960 they were granted independence, finally renamed the DRC.\n\nBut if you thought that was going to be the end of it, think again. The DRC almost immediately collapsed the second it became independent. Mutinies by black Congolese soldiers against their white Belgian officers were kicking off across the country as it was plunged into crisis leading to coups and instability. The first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba tried to garner support from the Soviet Union, but this drew the wrath of Washington DC at the height of the red scare.\n\nBecause you see, the governments of both the USSR and USA were run by greedy men, intent on proving ideological superiority in this geopolitical game of chess. Capturing a strong relationship with the DRC would lead to a sympathetic government who would provide access to the vast resources of the country.\n\nWithin a year, Lumumba was assassinated by a mix of dissident groups and Belgian forces along with help from the CIA. And who filled the power vacuum? Colonel Mobutu Sese Seko. He originally took over in 1961, but an armed struggle ensued for several years until 1965, when Mobutu, now a major-General, finally took full control of the nation. He was sympathetic to the West, and allowed Congolese allies to plunder the nation anew in return for protection and close ties. He ruled the nation for three decades, renaming it Zaire in 1966 and also renaming the capital from Leopoldville, to Kinshasa.\n\nHowever, if you thought that now that the DRC had a solely African leader ready to take back control of the nation and strive forward into a new golden age, you'd be sadly mistaken.\n\nBecause, you see, and stop me if you've heard this one before, Mobutu Sese Seko was a greedy man.\n\nDuring his rule the infrastructure and institutions of the state fell apart. But rather than propelling his nation forward, Mobutu ran a kleptocratic regime that stole billions from the public purse whilst many within the nation starved to death. Mobutu was ousted by Laurent-Désiré Kabila in 1997 with the help of Rwanda and Uganda, also renaming Zaire back to the DRC. But Kabila turned on them in 1998, and drawing on support of nations across Africa took the DRC into what was known as the African World War. 5.4 million Congolese perished in the destruction, half of which were children under the age of five. It was the deadliest war fought on earth since World War Two.\n\nNow the reason we've just run you through the DRC's history up to the new millennium in great detail, is to understand that the DRC is defined as a place ravaged by outsiders, all the while violence and brutality rages on within, and when looking at both nations together, it will go some of the way to explaining why we have two distinct Congos today.\n\nNow you've got a rundown of the DRC, it's time to focus on the RoC, or Republic of Congo, because the two nations' experiences in colonialism were equally marred by horror and exploitation.\n\n## The Other Side of the River\n\nRoC history is a little less compact than the DRC's. It has a much smaller land area and population, but it still has more than its fair share of suffering. Back in the Berlin Conference of 1884, whilst the DRC went to Leopold the evil, what is now considered the Republic of the Congo was integrated into the French Empire under its third republic. It was known at the time as \"French Congo.\" But in 1910 it was changed again to French Equatorial Africa, as French Congo was incorporated into a larger entity consisting of the modern nations of the Central African Republic, Cameroon, and Chad.\n\nAnd just like Leopold, colonial rule and dictatorship in the DRC, Congo-Brazzaville's colonial legacy is one of greed, exploitation, and brutal forced labour. Rubber, timber, some metals, and crops were all extracted from the landscape with none of the wealth transferring to the Congo itself. The French gave their own national companies carte blanche to do what they wanted with the territory as long as it was developed into economically profitable land. Meanwhile colonists on the ground in French Congo were driven by eugenic ideas at the time, believing the racist notion that Africans are primitive, and used it as a justification for their rule as a civilising mission, just like the Belgians did next door years later.\n\nThe companies used forced labour to get projects made and rubber quotas secured. The classic horror that existed on the Belgian side of the river was also present in French Congo. Whips, chains, summary executions, beatings and more for missed quotas. Such practices led to scaled-up industrialisation projects like the 500-kilometre Congo-Ocean Railway. It ran from Brazzaville all the way to the Atlantic, and was built entirely from forced labour from 1921 to 1934. Congolese locals were recruited by coercion or force and were made to work for 10 hours a day, six days a week, without proper allocations of food or even medical care leading to accidents, famine, disease, and death. Tens of thousands of people died just creating this project alone under savage conditions.\n\nHistorian and author J. P. Daughton, who wrote a book on the railroad, had the following to say about it, quoting here:\n\n> \"The railroad's brutality was petty, unthinking and often cruel – justified by racist beliefs that conveniently displaced moral responsibility.\"\n\nWhen reports initially reached back to France the people were similarly outraged as they were with the Congo Free State under Leopold, but as you might have caught, this project didn't get completed until 1934, a full 25 years later than Leopold was doing it too. The French government batted away criticism, sticking to the story of a civilising humanitarian mission in the Congo. But many knew the truth. And on top of it all, many of the projects in the French Congo did not make enough money, with many companies going bankrupt due to mismanagement. This is why the French had to consolidate French Congo into the French Equatorial Africa in the first place. It wouldn't have made it any better if it was profitable, but there is the feeling that so many died for no reason. It was suffering for suffering's sake.\n\nOutside of being the headquarters for Free France during the Second World War, things would largely continue on this path of exploitation and brutality until 1960, when riding that same wave of independence from various nations around the world including their next-door neighbours, Congo Brazzaville was finally granted independence from France… mostly. But we'll get to that later. The first President was Fulbert Youlou, who changed the capital to Brazzaville, putting both Congolese capitals within spitting distance of one another.\n\nBut before long, Congo Brazzaville also fell into the geopolitical quagmire that was Cold War Africa. Another coup happened in 1969 and the country was propelled into a scientific socialist constitutional ideology. It established ties with the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and North Vietnam. This was the point it also became known as the \"People's Republic of Congo.\" Following coup attempts and assassinations of leaders, by the 70s, despite a lot of industrial projects getting done and education on the rise, Congo Brazzaville was still struggling. Denis Sassou Nguesso was made President, and despite a five-year democratic hiatus in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union meant it could no longer financially prop up his regime, a civil war brought him back to power in 1997, and he has been in charge ever since. During this time, Marxist ideals were slowly going out of fashion, and so Congo Brazzaville took steps to move away from that ideology, this is when they dropped the \"people's\" from the official name, whilst keeping the Congolese Party of Labour (PCT) in total control. Nguesso has ruled the nation with an iron fist, whilst corruption and unfair elections festered.\n\nSo, as you can see, despite some similarities in the colonial era, the Cold War really set these two nations apart. What was once a common people, with a common history, culture, and more, became two distinct entities mired by the trauma and horror their people experienced under the authority of strongmen playing the geopolitical game.\n\nBut as we reach present day, they have started to have a little more in common again. Could they ever reconcile and become one whole Congo? Let's find out.\n\n## Congo Today – Devastation, Exploitation, Unification?\n\nSo, what is the state of play in both Congos today? And is there any real reason stopping two becoming one again?\n\nWell, let's start with the DRC, as it is a total and utter mess. Despite the Second Congo War officially \"ending\" in 2003, fighting in many regions of the country continued regardless. The DRC has had a long history of rebels in the country, and for one reason or another, the violence never really stopped. The same story has defined the DRC for decades and it still does today. Resource extraction, poverty, violence, and instability. In 2025, alleged Rwanda-backed rebels from the M23 group have been causing chaos across the nation, taking a significant amount of land. The Congolese government is weak and corrupt. Félix Tshisekedi is the current leader and has been since 2019, but doubts have been cast over his legitimacy due to alleged unfair elections. The President has made some strides in certain reforms, especially in renegotiating mineral deals with China, but his premiership feels like more of the same than a bold new direction.\n\nBut get this? You need money to run a country and as a poor nation, what it does have is critical resources that it can sell to other countries, and contracts it can hand out internationally, many which have gone to Western or Chinese companies.\n\nBut guess what? Say it with me now, those companies are run by greedy men.\n\nThe resource of the day isn't rubber anymore, or timber, or oil, or even gold and diamonds, it's rarer minerals like cobalt and coltan, both of which are absolutely critical to the electronics we use every single day. Everyone's got one of these things for example, and there is a distinct chance that the cobalt and coltan in it may well have come from the Congo. The heart-wrenching bottom of the supply chain here is truly bleak. People's villages are demolished to make way for new mines. People are left with no home and no other option than to make their living in the mines, for minimal, and sometimes no pay in subhuman conditions. Men, women, and children dig out the toxic ore with shovels and even their bare hands, exposed to massive health risks whilst the constant threat of cave-ins and pits collapsing kills people every year.\n\n70 million of the over 100 million inhabitants of the DRC today live in extreme poverty still, often times making less than a couple dollars a day. Hundreds of thousands of women and girls are subjected to sexual violence. The CIA reckons that 3.5 million people have died in the Congo since 1998 owing to various conflicts and their related factors. Meanwhile, the government remains deeply corrupt as the elites enrich themselves from the suffering of their countrymen.\n\nThe country is still poor, violent, and unstable as its natural wealth just walks out the door. People are still hungry, people still die. For all our enlightenment in the 21st century, the Congo is now what it has always been. Is it really any different from the rubber, cannibalism, and piles of severed hands, just repackaged for 2025? It's hard to know for sure.\n\nAs for the RoC, Nguesso is still at the helm, having ruled the country on and off for four decades. The Republic, just like its democratic cousin has been mired by corruption, with the RoC ranking close to its neighbour amongst the least free across all African Nations according to Freedom House. Nguesso has held several elections but almost all of them have been contested, had a low turnout, or resulted in ridiculous re-election figures relating to election fraud… allegedly. Brazzaville's economy today relies on its oil wealth to sustain its regime, which continues its own legacy of colonial resource extraction, also just like the DRC. He has also enriched himself, as when the Pandora Papers emerged in 2021 it revealed Nguesso controlled one of the nation's most valuable assets, a diamond mine. The more things change, the more they stay the same.\n\nAnd get this, the republic hasn't fully cast off the shackles of colonialism either. The current currency of the RoC is the Central African Franc (CFA), and it is pegged to the Euro for stability. But as part of the deal that led to the nation's independence, as well as for the other former French colonial African states, CFA countries are required to keep 50% of their foreign exchange reserves in France's central bank. This severely limits independent monetary policy for those who use the CFA, and it gives Paris a lot of power over how these countries run their economies. Many critics argue this is colonialism by just another name, whilst its proponents argue stability.\n\nFrance also had this arrangement over the West African Franc, but this was reformed in 2019. In 2021 France agreed in principle to reform the central African currency, replacing it with the \"Eco\", and that is set to arrive in 2027 after being delayed multiple times.\n\nDespite its relatively abysmal democratic record however, Congo Brazzaville has maintained better economic outcomes and has had greater stability than its much larger neighbour to the East, at least since the 90s. Economic inequality is very stark, but those living in Brazzaville have a comparably higher standard of living to their counterparts across the river in Kinshasa. Industrialisation, life expectancy, and overall quality of life point to a more favourable situation. The RoC only has around six million citizens, meaning there's just more money to go around relative to the resources. A lot of it gets plundered for sure, but when you have to spread out what's left between six million people instead of over 100 million, you can see how we got to this outcome.\n\nAnd one of the things that shows just how much has been taken out of the Congo in comparison to what has been put in, is how little the two capitals, Kinshasa and Brazzaville, connect to each other. You would think that two nations basically sharing a capital city over a river would collaborate on big projects to get the best of both worlds and a greater connectivity between the two nations, just like the Kingdom of Kongo all that time ago. But you'd be wrong.\n\nThe two countries were not even connected via telecom until the 2000s. Previous calls between the two capitals that are so close together, that a strong and brave enough person could swim between them, cost $3 per minute on average, as the calls would have to be rerouted via France and Belgium where the infrastructure existed, and therefore would be charged at international rates. For that money, I reckon shouting very loudly could be a useful alternative. Thankfully this was rectified and the cost per minute of a call between the two nations today is a mere $0.28 cents or less. That's still expensive for those on less than a dollar per day, but it's at least a step in the right direction.\n\nAnd more steps are being made today. Discussions over a large bridge to connect the two capitals has been ongoing for a long time. Up until now, if you wanted to drive from one city to the other, you had to take a ferry. But in June of 2025, the bidding process between companies will begin to build the bridge that will finally make the two Congos connected on the very river where it was split almost a century and a half ago.\n\nSo, as you can see there are a lot of similarities between both Congos nowadays. On top of all the other things they share, they share similar problems around external influences on their national wealth, and they also share ambitions to connect the two countries more together.\n\nAnd so, some of you may be thinking, is there any real reason why both nations couldn't unify into the Congo of old? A rising tide lifts all ships after all. It could foster trade, heal colonial wounds, and make both countries prosper within Africa.\n\nAnd the answer is technically, no! Nothing is stopping them from legally making that choice together. But there are a lot of differing factors which affect the likelihood of something like this coming to pass.\n\nFor one, despite the long-shared history between both Congos, their respective national identities have continued to evolve since the Kingdom of Kongo was split. So, someone from Brazzaville might feel culturally or ethnically very close to someone from Kinshasa, but politically and nationally, the two nations aren't really aligned all that much. Think of it like the US and Canada for example, ethnically, historically, and culturally very similar, nationally, and politically very distinct. So just merging the two would certainly lead to some teething problems among both nationalities. I'm not saying it can't be done, but a lot of water would need to go under that new bridge.\n\nSecondly, the DRC would hold an enormous power imbalance over the RoC if they ever unified. It has multiple times the amount of land and people that the RoC has. Such a union wouldn't be so much a marriage of equals and more like the DRC absorbing the RoC into it as something of a vassal state. And the DRC has a lot of problems that the RoC may not want to inherit, like, oh I don't know, the WAR ongoing in the east of the country for example.\n\nAnd let's be real, neither of the current regimes in power would want to give up what they have to merge. Unity brings more instability, it brings power struggle, it brings upending of the status quo, and neither side's government wants that because it could be their heads on the (hopefully figurative) chopping block. The political and military elites of both nations would need to be reassured that their own positions wouldn't be threatened. And the reality is they probably would be, which would open up a whole new can of worms all over again. That instability certainly wouldn't suit the RoC especially given the current leader has run the country for over four decades now.\n\nAnd it's not just the internal side of things that both nations have to contend with either. Lest we forget, this is the Congo, with all its vast resources, regional instability, and geopolitical wrangling. Countries across the entire world could be affected by a potential unification. There are many people, countries, companies, and more who will have a vested interest in keeping their current supply chains, their current relationships with governments, their strategic deals for resources or even weaponry as they are. More people might not appreciate the table being flipped and having to establish those things with new rules. And many would do everything in their power to stop it happening, from both on and off the continent.\n\nAnd for these reasons, and I'm sure many more, this kind of proposal has never really been seriously suggested. There's certainly no mainstream appeal or grassroots movement. Both nations seem content on their own for now. But that new bridge is significant. It could symbolise the return of closer ties between two nations estranged for so long. And could pave the way for new collaborative efforts like increased cross-border trade, cutting administrative tape, the sharing of technology, foreign student programmes, joint energy projects or even mutual defence agreements, though that last one isn't super likely with the DRC knee-deep in conflict right now.\n\nOverall, the two Congos are just that, two Congos. They share a history, a culture, a language, and much more. But they are their own people, their own countries, with their own desires and ambitions. African politics is complicated, and what will come next for the DRC and RoC is impossible to know for certain. But one thing is for sure. Nothing will change in both nations until they can clean up the corruption, stop the rot, and turn some of that immense resource wealth towards the betterment of the people.\n\nUntil then, it will remain in a cycle of greedy men, being killed and replaced by greedier men.\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- The Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo share a history, culture, and geography, but were split by colonial powers.\n- Both Congos have experienced significant exploitation and violence due to colonialism and resource extraction.\n- The DRC has faced severe conflicts and political instability since gaining independence, with ongoing violence and resource plundering.\n- The Republic of the Congo has had a more stable economy but is still plagued by corruption and authoritarian rule.\n- Unification of the two Congos faces significant political, economic, and geopolitical challenges despite shared history and culture.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### What are the two Congos?\n\nThe two Congos are the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Republic of the Congo (RoC). The DRC is larger and located to the east, while the RoC is smaller and located to the west. Both countries share the basin of the Congo River, which separates them.\n\n### Why are there two Congos?\n\nThe two Congos were once part of the Kingdom of Kongo, but they were divided during the Berlin Conference of 1884. The territory north of the Congo River was governed by France, becoming the Republic of the Congo, while the territory south of the river was controlled by Belgium, becoming the Democratic Republic of the Congo.\n\n### What is the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?\n\nThe DRC was originally controlled by King Leopold II of Belgium as the Congo Free State, where brutal exploitation and atrocities occurred. It later became a Belgian colony and gained independence in 1960. Since then, it has experienced political instability, coups, and civil wars, including the Second Congo War, which was one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II.\n\n### What is the history of the Republic of the Congo?\n\nThe RoC was part of French Equatorial Africa and gained independence from France in 1960. It has experienced coups, civil wars, and political instability. The country has been ruled by Denis Sassou Nguesso for much of its post-independence history, with periods of Marxist ideology and economic struggles.\n\n### What are the similarities between the two Congos?\n\nBoth Congos share a history, geography, culture, and demography. They share a border, a river, and a pair of capital cities that are very close to each other. They also share the French language and a mix of Christian and traditional tribal religions.\n\n### What are the differences between the two Congos?\n\nThe DRC is much larger in terms of land area and population compared to the RoC. The DRC has experienced more severe political instability and conflict, while the RoC has had a more stable economy and better economic outcomes since the 1990s. The RoC also maintains closer ties with France through its currency and economic policies.\n\n### What is the current state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?\n\nThe DRC is currently experiencing ongoing conflicts, particularly in the eastern regions. The government is weak and corrupt, and the country faces significant issues with poverty, resource extraction, and violence. The current leader, Félix Tshisekedi, has made some reforms but faces doubts over his legitimacy.\n\n### What is the current state of the Republic of the Congo?\n\nThe RoC is ruled by Denis Sassou Nguesso, who has been in power for over four decades. The country faces issues with corruption and unfair elections but has maintained better economic stability and a higher standard of living compared to the DRC. The economy relies heavily on oil wealth and resource extraction.\n\n### Are there any plans to unify the two Congos?\n\nThere are no serious plans to unify the two Congos. While they share many similarities, they have distinct national identities and political systems. The DRC's larger size and ongoing conflicts make unification challenging. Additionally, both countries' current regimes may not want to give up their power.\n\n### What is the significance of the Congo River to the two Congos?\n\nThe Congo River is a significant geographical feature that separates the two Congos. It has historically been a dividing line between French and Belgian colonial rule. The river's basin is shared by both countries, and efforts are being made to improve connectivity between the two capitals, Kinshasa and Brazzaville, which are very close to each other.\n\n## Sources\n\n- [Original Places video: Why Are There TWO Congos?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4iSaw4Q248)\n- [Hero image source](https://images.rawpixel.com/editor_1024/czNmcy1wcml2YXRlL3Jhd3BpeGVsX2ltYWdlcy93ZWJzaXRlX2NvbnRlbnQvbHIvdXB3azYxNjkzODU2LXdpa2ltZWRpYS1pbWFnZS1rb3dsbDVsMS5qcGc.jpg) by openverse, cc0.\n\n## Related Coverage" url: https://places.site/article/why-are-there-two-congos.md canonical: https://places.site/article/why-are-there-two-congos datePublished: 2026-07-01 dateModified: 2026-07-01 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://places.site/author/simon-whistler publisher: Places image: "https://media.places.site/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,height=900,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/Q4iSaw4Q248/hero.jpg" type: NewsArticle contentHash: e262e2e3ae1cdd63f1a22bc49e42312b8d864fed40a5254196926e0e9dd60650 tokens: 9658 summaryUrl: https://places.site/article/why-are-there-two-congos.md.summary.md --- Let me ask you a question: have you ever heard of the Congo? That place filled with rainforests, precious metals, and more AK-47s than a Soviet weapons factory. Slap bang in the middle of Africa, and with its enormous size, it's pretty hard to miss. The Congo. The mysteries of this fascinating landscape have captivated people for generations, from its extensive biodiversity, to its different languages and cultures, to its political upheavals in the modern era. Now, those of you with your thinking caps on might have asked "which one?" when I mentioned the Congo. And that's a fair question to ask, because there are actually two nations in this region that both go by the Congo name. Well done you. But why is that? Because as far as we can tell, these nations have a shared history, language, culture, and countless other things that join them at the hip. The only thing really separating them today is a border on a river that shared both countries' names. So, join us today as we investigate the story of how one became two. How the world altered their trajectories forever, and how unimaginable amounts of blood were spilled at every step along the way. This is what happens when for over a century, people prioritise greed over lives. It ain't pretty. ## River, People, Kingdom So, what the heck is a Congo anyway? Well today it's the name of two separate nations in sub-Saharan Africa, the larger Democratic Republic of the Congo to the East, and the smaller Republic of the Congo situated to the West. Both nations share the basin of the Congo river, which splits the countries apart. In fact, both capitals, Brazzaville, and Kinshasa respectively, are within just mere kilometres of each other, and as the crow flies, the shortest distance between the two over the river is under a kilometre and a half. As capitals cities go, that's extremely unique, they are even geographically the closest pair of capital cities on earth today. But that's today, these dual namesakes have been bound by the concept of the Congo for a lot longer than that. The name Congo comes from the Bakongo, a Bantu tribe who live in the region. Now both these countries today have a huge number of different ethnic and tribal groups, but Bakongo was the one that stuck. The region was known as the Kingdom of the Kongo until 1885, and it was a powerful pre-colonial empire comprising of both modern Congos, and parts of North Angola. These boundaries like in a lot of pre-colonial places were quite fluid and so some claim that the Kingdom of Kongo was even larger still. As early as 1000 BC the peoples of this area engaged in the local and long-distance trading of raw materials such as iron, ivory, and copper. It was through this commercial activity that the empires managed to expand politically and economically. When the Kongo Kingdom was first incorporated into the burgeoning global capitalist economy, it was through contact with the Portuguese and the selling of slaves. But little did the locals there know that this decision would lead to over a century of suffering. The Congo as a region is defined by its extraordinarily varied geography. At the heart is the Congo River itself, and heavy rainforests cascade over the landscape. But it's not all jungle, there are savannah plains, mountainous regions, flooded forests, and more, all contributing to the incredible biodiversity of the terrain. It's also a place of extremes. It is a land of immense rain and thunderstorms, with the equator scything through the middle. It is a land of both spectacular wealth beyond your wildest dreams and simultaneously one of the poorest regions on the entire planet. Its sacred grounds have seen so much bloodshed and violence over the past century and a half alone, that it seems inextricably linked to exploitation, corruption, and violence. And this is largely the case for both Congos. Yes, everyone knows that the DRC is a basket case at the best of times. But the smaller Republic of the Congo has its own very similar dark history to share that reinforces the problems present today. And both nations are very similar. They share history, geography, culture, and demography. They share a border, a river, and a pair of capital cities that could be called a single massive city if not for the border. They share language, with the lingua franca of the day being French, with many other languages being prominent like Lingala. Both are heavily Christian with a healthy mix of Protestants and Catholics, as well as comprising of other cultural and traditional tribal religions too. So that begs the question, if they're so similar, why are they two countries, and not one? What has separated these otherwise highly similar nations with a lot in common from each other? Well, to answer that, we need to explore the history of these territories, and see that whilst both were ravaged by colonialism, it sent them down two very different paths. ## The Depravity of Greedy Men Let's start with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, known as Congo Kinshasa or just the DRC. Our story begins in 1884. The European scramble for Africa had just begun. At a conference in Berlin that year, differing European empires carved up Africa on a map and sold it to the highest bidder, ensuring a legacy of violence, pillaging and poverty that still affects the majority of the continent today. And it is at this conference where the Kingdom of Kongo would be divvied up, as the largest territory to be plundered by greedy colonial hands. The Kingdom of Kongo at the time was also in decline as conflicts divided the region internally. But soon it would be divided by external forces. Despite the shared culture, languages, history, and even kingdom, the region known as the Congo would be split in two right down the Congo river itself. The territory on the Northern side of the river, what is now Congo Brazzaville, was to be governed by the French, whilst the Southern side, now Congo Kinshasa, was to go down a slightly different path. It would be controlled by Belgium. Well, not exactly, it would actually fall under the ownership not of the Belgian government, but its monarch, King Leopold the second. In the 1870s, Leopold the second hired Henry Morton Stanley to map and establish Belgian outposts along the Congo river. So, when it was time to divide and conquer Africa, they were already there. 15 years later he would convince other European powers to give him the territory at the Berlin Conference by claiming sovereignty over the Congo river's basin, and by claiming he would help the natives and combat slavery. Neither would turn out to be true. Because you see, this king was a greedy man. He named the entire area now comprising of the DRC as the "Congo Free State," meant to encompass free trade in the region, but given the depravity to come, the name feels more like a cruel joke. Almost nobody here would be free. Not with Leopold calling the shots from thousands of kilometres away. The trading post Stanley had set up in 1881 was called Leopoldville after all, to everyone that mattered in global affairs, the Congo was all his. And in this bizarre colonial situation, where a single person had control over a territory so large who answered to nobody but himself, Leopold took full advantage. With the industrial revolution in Europe well underway by this stage, there was a booming trade for natural rubber to use in things like machines and vehicles. Rubber was pretty scarce by comparison to the high demand, as it could only naturally grow in certain climates from rubber trees or vines. The Congo Free State just so happened to be one of the few places where rubber wasn't just present, but bountiful, there were rubber vines everywhere. And so, like a gluttonous leech, Leopold tried to suck the Congo dry. He set up a system that would siphon money and resources like rubber back to Belgium. Over time, he took over completely, rendering the population as little more than serfs by the 1890s. To enforce his will, Leopold's own private army, *La Force Publique*, made up of African conscripts and European officers, which answered only to him, enforced a brutal regime of exploitation and suffering. Strict rubber quotas were slapped down, and if the population couldn't meet them, there would be hell to pay. People were kidnapped by force from villages and used as hostages, with the army threatening to kill them if rubber quotas were not reached. Death was a common punishment, but a mercy by comparison, as a grotesque economy of mutilation would soon arise in the Congo. *Force Publique* soldiers were told to account for every bullet they used to control the Congolese, and if they did kill someone, they were told to cut off their right hand as proof of death, showing that bullets hadn't been wasted on things like hunting. But this created a demand for severed hands, which quickly grew out of control. The petrified locals often couldn't meet their rubber quotas, and to avoid collective punishment and harbour favour, they would be required themselves to find severed hands to bring as proof that they were fighting off others in place of their quotas. But hands were easier to harvest than rubber, leading to villagers and locals attacking one another and cutting off their hands, or cutting them off of dead bodies, to desperately present to the soldiers. This enforced a strict cycle of terror and control over the population, ensuring that they would be too busy fighting each other to ever rise up. But that was not all. Beatings and lashings were common, rape was endemic regardless of gender or age, and even cannibalism occurred. The depravity and brutality of the Congo Free State represented a phenomenon closer to true anarchy than most will ever experience. It was effectively a prison colony. Diseases and famine were widespread and uncontrollable, the population were little more than slaves by another name, and the violence perpetrated on the Congolese was one of, if not the most brutal colonial administrations and forced labour regimes in all of human history. And for what? Rubber, money, and greed. Estimates of how many died during this time vary a lot both up and down. Some believe the death toll was as high as 10 to 15 million people. Some put it as high as 20 million. That is between one and a half, to three and a half Holocausts. Attempted genocide wouldn't even begin to describe it if that number was even close to accurate. Although this stat comes from historian Adam Hochschild, and is heavily disputed. Many also believe the number could be as low as just over a million. A staggering loss of life still, all the same, but as you can see the range is truly massive. The situation was so bad, that when people began learning about what was going on across the world, there was a concerted international effort to put pressure on King Leopold to transfer his personal rule of the Congo to Belgium. This is at the start of the 20th century remember. People were doing horrible things to indigenous people all over the world at the time, and the incredible levels of racism back then led to people not exactly caring much about the plight of the average African. And yet, Leopold's Congo was so depraved, so vile, so evil, that one of the earliest ever humanitarian movements came out of it as a result that saw considerable popular support. In 1908, he finally transferred power, after 23 long years of atrocities and suffering. King Leopold the second then did the decent thing and died a year later in 1909. He would never answer for his crimes. But just because the Congo was now in Belgian hands and not Leopold's, didn't mean that the lives of regular Congolese got much better. Fresh from a generation of torment and trauma, it now had to contend with just being a regular imperial colony. Belgium followed a paternalistic approach to colonial rule, portraying the Congolese as child-like and unable to govern themselves, a sentiment dripping in the racism of the time. In reality, the Belgians did little to truly develop the region or bring the people out of poverty, the Congolese had just swapped one authoritarian system for another. Instead of a King's decree, it was politicians' pens and paper. But you see, these politicians were greedy men. And Belgium continued to strangle the Congo for every last drop of what it could sell. A wide selection of goods from the mining sector would soon be added to the Belgian inventory, including gold, diamonds, copper, tin, cobalt, zinc and even uranium. The class of the *Force Publique* was replaced with a system known as the *évolués*. These were an economically and socially privileged class that was thought of as more "Westernized." In short, the colonial regime invented a purely African subculture that was incentivised to betray the interests of the broader Congolese community. Whether it was Kings and soldiers, or politicians and laws, the end result was the same. Plunder the resources, whilst you divide and conquer the populous, who suffer with nothing. But the Congolese grew increasingly frustrated with their lot, stuck under the thumb of Brussels. A growing resistance to Belgian colonial rule was growing by the 50s, resulting in the Leopoldville riots of 1959. With the shadow of the Congo Free State still in living memory for many, and with a growing national identity catching the momentum of independence movements elsewhere in Africa, Belgium was forced to the negotiation table. And in June of 1960 they were granted independence, finally renamed the DRC. But if you thought that was going to be the end of it, think again. The DRC almost immediately collapsed the second it became independent. Mutinies by black Congolese soldiers against their white Belgian officers were kicking off across the country as it was plunged into crisis leading to coups and instability. The first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba tried to garner support from the Soviet Union, but this drew the wrath of Washington DC at the height of the red scare. Because you see, the governments of both the USSR and USA were run by greedy men, intent on proving ideological superiority in this geopolitical game of chess. Capturing a strong relationship with the DRC would lead to a sympathetic government who would provide access to the vast resources of the country. Within a year, Lumumba was assassinated by a mix of dissident groups and Belgian forces along with help from the CIA. And who filled the power vacuum? Colonel Mobutu Sese Seko. He originally took over in 1961, but an armed struggle ensued for several years until 1965, when Mobutu, now a major-General, finally took full control of the nation. He was sympathetic to the West, and allowed Congolese allies to plunder the nation anew in return for protection and close ties. He ruled the nation for three decades, renaming it Zaire in 1966 and also renaming the capital from Leopoldville, to Kinshasa. However, if you thought that now that the DRC had a solely African leader ready to take back control of the nation and strive forward into a new golden age, you'd be sadly mistaken. Because, you see, and stop me if you've heard this one before, Mobutu Sese Seko was a greedy man. During his rule the infrastructure and institutions of the state fell apart. But rather than propelling his nation forward, Mobutu ran a kleptocratic regime that stole billions from the public purse whilst many within the nation starved to death. Mobutu was ousted by Laurent-Désiré Kabila in 1997 with the help of Rwanda and Uganda, also renaming Zaire back to the DRC. But Kabila turned on them in 1998, and drawing on support of nations across Africa took the DRC into what was known as the African World War. 5.4 million Congolese perished in the destruction, half of which were children under the age of five. It was the deadliest war fought on earth since World War Two. Now the reason we've just run you through the DRC's history up to the new millennium in great detail, is to understand that the DRC is defined as a place ravaged by outsiders, all the while violence and brutality rages on within, and when looking at both nations together, it will go some of the way to explaining why we have two distinct Congos today. Now you've got a rundown of the DRC, it's time to focus on the RoC, or Republic of Congo, because the two nations' experiences in colonialism were equally marred by horror and exploitation. ## The Other Side of the River RoC history is a little less compact than the DRC's. It has a much smaller land area and population, but it still has more than its fair share of suffering. Back in the Berlin Conference of 1884, whilst the DRC went to Leopold the evil, what is now considered the Republic of the Congo was integrated into the French Empire under its third republic. It was known at the time as "French Congo." But in 1910 it was changed again to French Equatorial Africa, as French Congo was incorporated into a larger entity consisting of the modern nations of the Central African Republic, Cameroon, and Chad. And just like Leopold, colonial rule and dictatorship in the DRC, Congo-Brazzaville's colonial legacy is one of greed, exploitation, and brutal forced labour. Rubber, timber, some metals, and crops were all extracted from the landscape with none of the wealth transferring to the Congo itself. The French gave their own national companies carte blanche to do what they wanted with the territory as long as it was developed into economically profitable land. Meanwhile colonists on the ground in French Congo were driven by eugenic ideas at the time, believing the racist notion that Africans are primitive, and used it as a justification for their rule as a civilising mission, just like the Belgians did next door years later. The companies used forced labour to get projects made and rubber quotas secured. The classic horror that existed on the Belgian side of the river was also present in French Congo. Whips, chains, summary executions, beatings and more for missed quotas. Such practices led to scaled-up industrialisation projects like the 500-kilometre Congo-Ocean Railway. It ran from Brazzaville all the way to the Atlantic, and was built entirely from forced labour from 1921 to 1934. Congolese locals were recruited by coercion or force and were made to work for 10 hours a day, six days a week, without proper allocations of food or even medical care leading to accidents, famine, disease, and death. Tens of thousands of people died just creating this project alone under savage conditions. Historian and author J. P. Daughton, who wrote a book on the railroad, had the following to say about it, quoting here: > "The railroad's brutality was petty, unthinking and often cruel – justified by racist beliefs that conveniently displaced moral responsibility." When reports initially reached back to France the people were similarly outraged as they were with the Congo Free State under Leopold, but as you might have caught, this project didn't get completed until 1934, a full 25 years later than Leopold was doing it too. The French government batted away criticism, sticking to the story of a civilising humanitarian mission in the Congo. But many knew the truth. And on top of it all, many of the projects in the French Congo did not make enough money, with many companies going bankrupt due to mismanagement. This is why the French had to consolidate French Congo into the French Equatorial Africa in the first place. It wouldn't have made it any better if it was profitable, but there is the feeling that so many died for no reason. It was suffering for suffering's sake. Outside of being the headquarters for Free France during the Second World War, things would largely continue on this path of exploitation and brutality until 1960, when riding that same wave of independence from various nations around the world including their next-door neighbours, Congo Brazzaville was finally granted independence from France… mostly. But we'll get to that later. The first President was Fulbert Youlou, who changed the capital to Brazzaville, putting both Congolese capitals within spitting distance of one another. But before long, Congo Brazzaville also fell into the geopolitical quagmire that was Cold War Africa. Another coup happened in 1969 and the country was propelled into a scientific socialist constitutional ideology. It established ties with the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and North Vietnam. This was the point it also became known as the "People's Republic of Congo." Following coup attempts and assassinations of leaders, by the 70s, despite a lot of industrial projects getting done and education on the rise, Congo Brazzaville was still struggling. Denis Sassou Nguesso was made President, and despite a five-year democratic hiatus in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union meant it could no longer financially prop up his regime, a civil war brought him back to power in 1997, and he has been in charge ever since. During this time, Marxist ideals were slowly going out of fashion, and so Congo Brazzaville took steps to move away from that ideology, this is when they dropped the "people's" from the official name, whilst keeping the Congolese Party of Labour (PCT) in total control. Nguesso has ruled the nation with an iron fist, whilst corruption and unfair elections festered. So, as you can see, despite some similarities in the colonial era, the Cold War really set these two nations apart. What was once a common people, with a common history, culture, and more, became two distinct entities mired by the trauma and horror their people experienced under the authority of strongmen playing the geopolitical game. But as we reach present day, they have started to have a little more in common again. Could they ever reconcile and become one whole Congo? Let's find out. ## Congo Today – Devastation, Exploitation, Unification? So, what is the state of play in both Congos today? And is there any real reason stopping two becoming one again? Well, let's start with the DRC, as it is a total and utter mess. Despite the Second Congo War officially "ending" in 2003, fighting in many regions of the country continued regardless. The DRC has had a long history of rebels in the country, and for one reason or another, the violence never really stopped. The same story has defined the DRC for decades and it still does today. Resource extraction, poverty, violence, and instability. In 2025, alleged Rwanda-backed rebels from the M23 group have been causing chaos across the nation, taking a significant amount of land. The Congolese government is weak and corrupt. Félix Tshisekedi is the current leader and has been since 2019, but doubts have been cast over his legitimacy due to alleged unfair elections. The President has made some strides in certain reforms, especially in renegotiating mineral deals with China, but his premiership feels like more of the same than a bold new direction. But get this? You need money to run a country and as a poor nation, what it does have is critical resources that it can sell to other countries, and contracts it can hand out internationally, many which have gone to Western or Chinese companies. But guess what? Say it with me now, those companies are run by greedy men. The resource of the day isn't rubber anymore, or timber, or oil, or even gold and diamonds, it's rarer minerals like cobalt and coltan, both of which are absolutely critical to the electronics we use every single day. Everyone's got one of these things for example, and there is a distinct chance that the cobalt and coltan in it may well have come from the Congo. The heart-wrenching bottom of the supply chain here is truly bleak. People's villages are demolished to make way for new mines. People are left with no home and no other option than to make their living in the mines, for minimal, and sometimes no pay in subhuman conditions. Men, women, and children dig out the toxic ore with shovels and even their bare hands, exposed to massive health risks whilst the constant threat of cave-ins and pits collapsing kills people every year. 70 million of the over 100 million inhabitants of the DRC today live in extreme poverty still, often times making less than a couple dollars a day. Hundreds of thousands of women and girls are subjected to sexual violence. The CIA reckons that 3.5 million people have died in the Congo since 1998 owing to various conflicts and their related factors. Meanwhile, the government remains deeply corrupt as the elites enrich themselves from the suffering of their countrymen. The country is still poor, violent, and unstable as its natural wealth just walks out the door. People are still hungry, people still die. For all our enlightenment in the 21st century, the Congo is now what it has always been. Is it really any different from the rubber, cannibalism, and piles of severed hands, just repackaged for 2025? It's hard to know for sure. As for the RoC, Nguesso is still at the helm, having ruled the country on and off for four decades. The Republic, just like its democratic cousin has been mired by corruption, with the RoC ranking close to its neighbour amongst the least free across all African Nations according to Freedom House. Nguesso has held several elections but almost all of them have been contested, had a low turnout, or resulted in ridiculous re-election figures relating to election fraud… allegedly. Brazzaville's economy today relies on its oil wealth to sustain its regime, which continues its own legacy of colonial resource extraction, also just like the DRC. He has also enriched himself, as when the Pandora Papers emerged in 2021 it revealed Nguesso controlled one of the nation's most valuable assets, a diamond mine. The more things change, the more they stay the same. And get this, the republic hasn't fully cast off the shackles of colonialism either. The current currency of the RoC is the Central African Franc (CFA), and it is pegged to the Euro for stability. But as part of the deal that led to the nation's independence, as well as for the other former French colonial African states, CFA countries are required to keep 50% of their foreign exchange reserves in France's central bank. This severely limits independent monetary policy for those who use the CFA, and it gives Paris a lot of power over how these countries run their economies. Many critics argue this is colonialism by just another name, whilst its proponents argue stability. France also had this arrangement over the West African Franc, but this was reformed in 2019. In 2021 France agreed in principle to reform the central African currency, replacing it with the "Eco", and that is set to arrive in 2027 after being delayed multiple times. Despite its relatively abysmal democratic record however, Congo Brazzaville has maintained better economic outcomes and has had greater stability than its much larger neighbour to the East, at least since the 90s. Economic inequality is very stark, but those living in Brazzaville have a comparably higher standard of living to their counterparts across the river in Kinshasa. Industrialisation, life expectancy, and overall quality of life point to a more favourable situation. The RoC only has around six million citizens, meaning there's just more money to go around relative to the resources. A lot of it gets plundered for sure, but when you have to spread out what's left between six million people instead of over 100 million, you can see how we got to this outcome. And one of the things that shows just how much has been taken out of the Congo in comparison to what has been put in, is how little the two capitals, Kinshasa and Brazzaville, connect to each other. You would think that two nations basically sharing a capital city over a river would collaborate on big projects to get the best of both worlds and a greater connectivity between the two nations, just like the Kingdom of Kongo all that time ago. But you'd be wrong. The two countries were not even connected via telecom until the 2000s. Previous calls between the two capitals that are so close together, that a strong and brave enough person could swim between them, cost $3 per minute on average, as the calls would have to be rerouted via France and Belgium where the infrastructure existed, and therefore would be charged at international rates. For that money, I reckon shouting very loudly could be a useful alternative. Thankfully this was rectified and the cost per minute of a call between the two nations today is a mere $0.28 cents or less. That's still expensive for those on less than a dollar per day, but it's at least a step in the right direction. And more steps are being made today. Discussions over a large bridge to connect the two capitals has been ongoing for a long time. Up until now, if you wanted to drive from one city to the other, you had to take a ferry. But in June of 2025, the bidding process between companies will begin to build the bridge that will finally make the two Congos connected on the very river where it was split almost a century and a half ago. So, as you can see there are a lot of similarities between both Congos nowadays. On top of all the other things they share, they share similar problems around external influences on their national wealth, and they also share ambitions to connect the two countries more together. And so, some of you may be thinking, is there any real reason why both nations couldn't unify into the Congo of old? A rising tide lifts all ships after all. It could foster trade, heal colonial wounds, and make both countries prosper within Africa. And the answer is technically, no! Nothing is stopping them from legally making that choice together. But there are a lot of differing factors which affect the likelihood of something like this coming to pass. For one, despite the long-shared history between both Congos, their respective national identities have continued to evolve since the Kingdom of Kongo was split. So, someone from Brazzaville might feel culturally or ethnically very close to someone from Kinshasa, but politically and nationally, the two nations aren't really aligned all that much. Think of it like the US and Canada for example, ethnically, historically, and culturally very similar, nationally, and politically very distinct. So just merging the two would certainly lead to some teething problems among both nationalities. I'm not saying it can't be done, but a lot of water would need to go under that new bridge. Secondly, the DRC would hold an enormous power imbalance over the RoC if they ever unified. It has multiple times the amount of land and people that the RoC has. Such a union wouldn't be so much a marriage of equals and more like the DRC absorbing the RoC into it as something of a vassal state. And the DRC has a lot of problems that the RoC may not want to inherit, like, oh I don't know, the WAR ongoing in the east of the country for example. And let's be real, neither of the current regimes in power would want to give up what they have to merge. Unity brings more instability, it brings power struggle, it brings upending of the status quo, and neither side's government wants that because it could be their heads on the (hopefully figurative) chopping block. The political and military elites of both nations would need to be reassured that their own positions wouldn't be threatened. And the reality is they probably would be, which would open up a whole new can of worms all over again. That instability certainly wouldn't suit the RoC especially given the current leader has run the country for over four decades now. And it's not just the internal side of things that both nations have to contend with either. Lest we forget, this is the Congo, with all its vast resources, regional instability, and geopolitical wrangling. Countries across the entire world could be affected by a potential unification. There are many people, countries, companies, and more who will have a vested interest in keeping their current supply chains, their current relationships with governments, their strategic deals for resources or even weaponry as they are. More people might not appreciate the table being flipped and having to establish those things with new rules. And many would do everything in their power to stop it happening, from both on and off the continent. And for these reasons, and I'm sure many more, this kind of proposal has never really been seriously suggested. There's certainly no mainstream appeal or grassroots movement. Both nations seem content on their own for now. But that new bridge is significant. It could symbolise the return of closer ties between two nations estranged for so long. And could pave the way for new collaborative efforts like increased cross-border trade, cutting administrative tape, the sharing of technology, foreign student programmes, joint energy projects or even mutual defence agreements, though that last one isn't super likely with the DRC knee-deep in conflict right now. Overall, the two Congos are just that, two Congos. They share a history, a culture, a language, and much more. But they are their own people, their own countries, with their own desires and ambitions. African politics is complicated, and what will come next for the DRC and RoC is impossible to know for certain. But one thing is for sure. Nothing will change in both nations until they can clean up the corruption, stop the rot, and turn some of that immense resource wealth towards the betterment of the people. Until then, it will remain in a cycle of greedy men, being killed and replaced by greedier men. ## Key Takeaways - The Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo share a history, culture, and geography, but were split by colonial powers. - Both Congos have experienced significant exploitation and violence due to colonialism and resource extraction. - The DRC has faced severe conflicts and political instability since gaining independence, with ongoing violence and resource plundering. - The Republic of the Congo has had a more stable economy but is still plagued by corruption and authoritarian rule. - Unification of the two Congos faces significant political, economic, and geopolitical challenges despite shared history and culture. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What are the two Congos? The two Congos are the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Republic of the Congo (RoC). The DRC is larger and located to the east, while the RoC is smaller and located to the west. Both countries share the basin of the Congo River, which separates them. ### Why are there two Congos? The two Congos were once part of the Kingdom of Kongo, but they were divided during the Berlin Conference of 1884. The territory north of the Congo River was governed by France, becoming the Republic of the Congo, while the territory south of the river was controlled by Belgium, becoming the Democratic Republic of the Congo. ### What is the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? The DRC was originally controlled by King Leopold II of Belgium as the Congo Free State, where brutal exploitation and atrocities occurred. It later became a Belgian colony and gained independence in 1960. Since then, it has experienced political instability, coups, and civil wars, including the Second Congo War, which was one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II. ### What is the history of the Republic of the Congo? The RoC was part of French Equatorial Africa and gained independence from France in 1960. It has experienced coups, civil wars, and political instability. The country has been ruled by Denis Sassou Nguesso for much of its post-independence history, with periods of Marxist ideology and economic struggles. ### What are the similarities between the two Congos? Both Congos share a history, geography, culture, and demography. They share a border, a river, and a pair of capital cities that are very close to each other. They also share the French language and a mix of Christian and traditional tribal religions. ### What are the differences between the two Congos? The DRC is much larger in terms of land area and population compared to the RoC. The DRC has experienced more severe political instability and conflict, while the RoC has had a more stable economy and better economic outcomes since the 1990s. The RoC also maintains closer ties with France through its currency and economic policies. ### What is the current state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? The DRC is currently experiencing ongoing conflicts, particularly in the eastern regions. The government is weak and corrupt, and the country faces significant issues with poverty, resource extraction, and violence. The current leader, Félix Tshisekedi, has made some reforms but faces doubts over his legitimacy. ### What is the current state of the Republic of the Congo? The RoC is ruled by Denis Sassou Nguesso, who has been in power for over four decades. The country faces issues with corruption and unfair elections but has maintained better economic stability and a higher standard of living compared to the DRC. The economy relies heavily on oil wealth and resource extraction. ### Are there any plans to unify the two Congos? There are no serious plans to unify the two Congos. While they share many similarities, they have distinct national identities and political systems. The DRC's larger size and ongoing conflicts make unification challenging. Additionally, both countries' current regimes may not want to give up their power. ### What is the significance of the Congo River to the two Congos? The Congo River is a significant geographical feature that separates the two Congos. It has historically been a dividing line between French and Belgian colonial rule. The river's basin is shared by both countries, and efforts are being made to improve connectivity between the two capitals, Kinshasa and Brazzaville, which are very close to each other. ## Sources - [Original Places video: Why Are There TWO Congos?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4iSaw4Q248) - [Hero image source](https://images.rawpixel.com/editor_1024/czNmcy1wcml2YXRlL3Jhd3BpeGVsX2ltYWdlcy93ZWJzaXRlX2NvbnRlbnQvbHIvdXB3azYxNjkzODU2LXdpa2ltZWRpYS1pbWFnZS1rb3dsbDVsMS5qcGc.jpg) by openverse, cc0. ## Related Coverage