The Power of One Man Part 1
How King Leopold II Destroyed an Entire Nation
T. G. George
HOW POWERFUL CAN ONE MAN TRULY BE? There is a threatening emergence of figures such as Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg expanding their span of control for seemingly personal, potentially megalomaniacal motives. They are on the hot seat, raising considerable political and social discussion. But what if I told you there was a man with even more sinister motives, and a far wider reach of power, who was never truly trailed? That man was King Leopold II, and his victim was the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
King Leopold II
When searching for the recent headlines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the first three read; “Soldier in DRC kills wife”, “Nine dead, 16 wounded in bomb blast in eastern DRC”, “UAE signs deal to develop mines in eastern DRC”. In other words, domestic violence, gang violence, exploitation, and corruption run rampant.
In this two-part article I will be exploring how one man can cause intergenerational dysfunction, exposing the dramatic consequences when we grant individuals with too much power.
At the Berlin Conference in 1885, the Belgian King Leopold II was granted Congo as a personal colony. This meant it belonged to no-one, but himself. The impacts of this decision still plague the Congo 138 years later. In Leopold’s stint of colonisation from 1885 to 1908, dehumanising atrocities in the pursuit of economic prosperity, prolonged by his intricate press bureau, systemically ingrained a climate of structured violence and repression. His favourable façade, and legendary status adopted by the Belgian people, facilitated the continuation of destruction by the Belgian Government until 1960.
To control this vast land and population, Leopold had to instruct horrific acts of violence. This included his 19,000-man army, known as the Force Publique, which comprised African conscripts under Belgian officers. Initially, this army enforced slave labour to loot the plentiful resource of ivory. However, the introduction of the pneumatic tyre in 1888 saw an increased desire for rubber, and hence gave way to a more brutal approach of exploiting the vast supply of equatorial rain forest. As Dr Benoit Henriet states, “Many different strategies of forced labour were practiced to collect these resources… workers were assembled by exercising violence like whipping people who didn’t want to cooperate. Inhabitants had no chance to flee, women were raped, and villages were plundered by soldiers and companies.” Additionally, the intrinsic disregard and dehumanisation of the Congolese people is highlighted in the mutilation of their limbs. Hands and feet were amputated and brought to officials as a trophy – to prove that bullets provided to the Force Publique were being used to control the people, instead of hunting for food. Punishment was encouraged among the generals, as bonuses were earnt based on rubber collection. This not only led to the death of 10 million Congolese, but further implemented a perceived correlation of violence equating to success, evident in today’s crime ridden DRC, as the first peaceful transition of power occurred only in 2019.
The implications of these acts of brutality were magnified, and have caused intergenerational hardships, because of Leopold’s deceptive measures to prolong his exploitative rule. Leopold covered up his genuine ambitions through the promotion of humanitarian intentions, and a firm belief in abolishing the slave trade, creating Christian missionaries, and bringing commerce, culture and civilisation to the Congo. These views were promoted when Leopold attended the Anti-Slavery Conference in 1889-1890, which, as stated in the Act, saw an “Intention of putting an end to the crimes and devastations engendered by the Traffic in African Slaves, protecting effectively the Aboriginal populations of Africa, and insuring for that vast continent the benefits of peace and civilisation”. Here, slavery was legally abolished, and Leopold further solidified public perception of his humanitarian intervention in the Congo. However, there was no African input in legislation, and in reality, this Act was a method of establishing the exploitation of Africa as an anti-slavery measure.
Leopold also utilised his press to generate distrust among the arguments of activists and preserve the favourable perception of the CFS in the eyes of the rest of the world. This team continuously refuted allegations against the CFS. They proposed counterarguments, suggesting that activists were Protestant conspiracists employed by the envious British Government or blackmailers seeking notoriety or payment. Through this, opposition was belittled and enabled Leopold to continue exploiting the Congo. This propaganda was disseminated through speeches, books and articles written by skilled journalists. The most prominent source of propaganda was the monthly publication of “La Verite Sur Le Congo “, which was subsidised by Leopold, printed in German, French and English, and spread across the world. Similar to the methods of the present, public perception was manipulated by social publications. These pieces greatly influenced public opinion, as Robert Park stated to Morel in 1904, “the daily papers (in the US) had so frizzled out the nerves of the American people with sensational stories, that mere tales of atrocities don’t count anymore. The people are beginning to regard them as vulgar”.
By manipulating public perception, Leopold could prolong his rule in the Congo, transferring the atrocities committed into intergenerational disorder and conflict. This is evident, as not only is violence rampant, but poverty is unavoidable, with 62% of the population living on less than $2.15 a day, making the Congo in the top five poorest nations in the world. Eventually, the pressure of various activists mounted, forcing Leopold to relinquish control of the CFS to Belgium. However, the impacts of his autocracy on the dysfunction of the Congo had not ceased. Read next week to find out how the atrocities committed, and public manipulation were continued by the Belgian Government, solidifying the detrimental effects of Leopold II’s rule on the Democratic Republic of Congo.
