The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the rebel group that is made up of the remnants of Hutu power is reported to be in disarray. According to reports in the media, its top commanders are sharply divided.

On one hand is the faction that realises that their enterprise is a dead end. On the other are the hardliners. For the latter, return to Rwanda can only be a one dimensional process, where they fight their way from the jungles of Kivu to power in Kigali.

This group is certainly deluded. They also are apocalyptic. They have failed to realise that a military takeover, mainly through their kind of jungle warfare and rural terrorism can no longer work. Though there are many issues to struggle for in regard to Rwanda, many in the FDLR do not have the moral right to be the champions of any cause.

Their atrocities over the years rendered them bankrupt; morally and ideologically. It is for such reasons that many in the opposition are always ready to disassociate from any activities FDLR is involved in.

And the means they have adopted are currently out of sync with the international consensus in regard to regime change.

Indeed, the regional and international political dynamics no longer favour war or even military coups as a means of changing government.

This, of course, presents a dilemma even when there could be justified grievances that can only be resolved through liberation struggle. It has rendered the just war theory of St. Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius problematic in recent times.

For the FDLR, it is uphill. Besides having no moral right to fight and they are also constrained by the political environment. And for the factions that have emerged, it is likely that the path of mutual annihilation is what now presents before them.

For their adversaries in Kigali, it ought to be a godsend as they probably encourage the factions to tear each other apart; though Foreign Minister Mushikiwabo seems to imply that the schism in FDLR changes nothing much!

It’s been long since a rebel movement successfully took power in Africa.

And in recent cases like Riek Machar who made the attempt in Juba, it was always obvious that he could not take power, although he did enjoy considerable foreign backing and personal prestige. What these positive attributes did for him, was to facilitate his reintegration into the governing alliance in South Sudan’s Sudanese People’s Liberation Army/ Movement.

Does FDLR enjoy anything like Dr Machar? Zilch. In any case they have never and are unlikely to ever hold territory in Rwanda. More so, it is apparent that the group is still controlled by remnants of the ex FAR and Interahamwe.

Clearly, it’s an organisation that is unable to recruit fresh blood. Largely relying on abducted Congolese children, it even lacks roots in the areas it occupies in Congo.

A number of factors have conspired to deny the group water in which to swim, as Chairman Mao, theorised in his treatise on revolutionary warfare. Indeed, they are like fish on dry land, and this implies that barring unforeseen circumstances, FDLR is on its death bed. Its demise would be a good thing.

Legitimate opposition political groups can occupy that space that has been tarnished by the infamy of the FDLR. What is worrying is that there are still pockets of fringe elements in an international system that continue to attach some premium of the FDLR.

Rwanda’s democratisation process can be championed through peaceful civil action. And that is the space that ought to be created by some who may have banked on a group like FDLR as a force for change.

At the end of the day, FDLR is primarily the responsibility of Rwanda and Rwandans. Then other regional and international players can complement the country’s efforts, regardless of the fact that it is based in the jungles of Congo.

When FDLR completely disarms, by whatever means, the period thereafter, jus post bellum will fall on the shoulders of the Rwandan people and their leaders to determine what to do to the different categories of combatants, many of whom have committed war crimes.

Certainly, war will not resolve the underlying factors that have kept the group alive for two decades. It is no longer a viable option.

Frank Kagabo is a freelance journalist