Yet, as of now, little has happened. The international community, with little stomach for further intervention in Congo, restricted itself to calling for "dialogue," far from the robust stand it took in the Ivory Coast standoff between Alassane Ouattara and Laurent Gbagbo that resulted in a civil war. But, in Congo, while there continues to be high levels of violence, especially in the east, it does not seem to be related directly to the election results, and the population appears to have moved on. Only the Congolese Diaspora has been vocal. Of course, the international and domestic reactions probably re-enforce each other: the international community is unlikely to move when there is little domestic reaction, and domestic reaction may be more muted because of the tepid international voice.

Future developments might ignite a stronger popular reaction. But, for now, how to account for the apparent passivity of the Congolese population in the aftermath of flawed elections? Part of the answer may be Kabila's relatively skillful use of repression - enough to paralyze the opposition but not so much that it produced a backlash. More fundamentally, as Adam Nossiter pointed out in the New York Times, the deep and pervasive poverty of the Congolese population means that most people are more concerned about feeding their families than about political activity or flawed election results.

Of necessity, this is speculation. But the question is worth asking. Why are some populations quiescent following flawed or stolen elections (Nigeria in 2007 and Congo now) while in others there is violent protest and the prospect of civil war (Kenya in 2007 or Zimbabwe in 2008). In Nigeria and Congo, the population historically has been largely alienated from government - any government. (In 2011, this may have changed in some parts of Nigeria, but not others.) In Kenya and Zimbabwe, with greater institutional development, however, government historically has mattered more to people. Maybe that has something to do with the different reactions to flawed elections, along with ethnic rivalries and a host of other issues. lt is an endlessly repeated cliché that African countries are all different - and their response to seemingly similar political developments reflects their own specific history and circumstances.

This article originally appeared at CFR.org, an Atlantic partner site.