4 ms·

> The dominant local power in most of that landmass is more likely to be a warlord/crime boss than the government. I would argue this is a false statement. The

> The dominant local power in most of that landmass is more likely to be a warlord/crime boss than the government. I would argue this is a false statement. There are pockets of instability there, especially near Goma and Virunga or very rural areas. The last few years especially have been unstable. But if you look at the country as a whole (which is the size of all Western Europe) over the last 15 years, the size of the territory not controlled by the internationally recognized legitimate government has been very small.

FredPret 6y ago
We can argue about definiton of words like legitimate, control, and “very small”. But a better test is this: would you go for a drive there with your family? Would you invest billions in a multi-decade mining project there - if you had to depend on the government’s version of law & order only?
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  You are making the assumption that "investing billions of dollars" is synonymous with all other forms of justice. During the Junta in Chile for example, you were very safe to invest. You were probably even safe to go for a drive. But the system was grotesque on the whole. I think the point people are trying to make is that 1) It varies far too much from country to country to generalize in this way. 2) Justice is patchy and even across many areas of law depending on where you are.