The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) today is faced with two significant challenges – the democratic deficit which lies at the heart of governance arrangements, and national and international partners’ failures to address the root causes of the country’s recent wars. Given the failure of efforts at democratisation and state-building from the top-down, this research examines the potential to build a new, more inclusive and equitable politics from the bottom up. Specifically, it explores the politically transformative potential of seven diverse community groups supported by Trócaire’s partners in Ituri. Drawing on a framework developed from social movement theory together with interviews and focus group discussions with over 140 group members, non-members, local authorities and local NGO representatives, the research seeks to answer the following questions. 1. Who is involved (and who is not) within a select number of community groups supported by Trócaire’s partners? 2. Why are they involved? (what is their motivation)? 3. How do these community groups bring about change? / what are their strategies for success? 4. Do these community groups contribute towards building a more democratic state from the bottom upwards? In relation to the first question, the findings indicate that most groups comprise a mix of members in terms of gender, ethnicity and class. Participation in these groups therefore, presents a valuable opportunity to shift and ultimately transform ethnic, class and gender-based identities. Three issues are highlighted and discussed in further detail in this regard – the apparent lack of mechanisms and/or procedures for ensuring equal participation in deliberation and decision-making within groups; the legitimacy of groups and the need for greater attention to be paid to forms of representation and mediation with communities; and the role and impact of male advisors in women’s groups. Examining members’ motivations for participation in community groups, the findings demonstrate that members are driven by a combination of personal and collective interests. Personal motivations include the enhanced status and resources (financial and/or material) that may accrue from membership of the group. Collective interests include a strong sense of depravation and marginalisation among group members – most notably in relation to women’s parity and rights, but also in relation to local development, justice and governance. Among women in particular (although not exclusively so), a strong sense of injustice and marginalisation is palpable in relation to women’s rights and accepted social norms of behaviour, as is the optimism around the opportunities posed by talk of parity. While this is, to some degree, about access to posts and resources, it is also about more. As women are finally afforded a voice within their communities, there are some initial signs of changing identities and cultures. Examining the groups’ strategies for change, the findings indicate that, for the most part, the main strategy employed is sensitisation and information provision rather than mobilisation as such. While sensitisation and information provision is an important first step in community mobilisation, it is argued that it is just one in a series of steps required to mobilise community members. The findings in this section also suggest that many community groups appear to be functioning as a parallel local authority structure – carrying out local Chiefs’ tasks on their behalf. While this can prove useful in resolving specific local issues, it fails to tackle or interrogate their structural or systemic root causes, reinforces traditional hierarchies, and simply adds another layer of local administration onto the existing one. This more passive, reactive approach is reflected also in the framing strategies employed which, focused on prognosis rather than diagnosis, and emphasising individual responsibility over structural shortcomings, ultimately fail to construct or influence popular understandings of the root causes of the specific issues tackled by groups. It is argued that the practice of treating these issues in a structural and contextual vacuum also misses important opportunities for harnessing one of the most potent (and cost-effective) forms of power – the power to shape minds and meaning, to build networks and coalitions for change, and to challenge and to transform structures accordingly. Turning to the final question, the findings demonstrate that the strongest impacts of community group involvement are at individual levels. These are evidenced in cases where members have successfully managed to defend their own rights or those of some immediate family members in the face of abuses of these rights by either the authorities or others in their community. They are also evidenced in the successes reported in securing posts in local administrative structures, notably at the level of local markets, ‘ten house’ heads, or in village councils. The findings also demonstrate some evidence of impacts on both ethnic and gender identities, although the degree of impact in both domains is highly variable. Overall, the findings indicate that groups’ activities and actions to date have had little broader transformative political impact thereby contributing little, as yet, to building a more democratic state from the bottom up. This is evidenced in the negligible impact on both local institutions and at a broader systemic political level. The study concludes by offering three main reasons why groups’ activities and actions to date appear to have had little transformative impact at this broader level on political institutions and systems. These relate to the role of community groups – as perceived by themselves, their supporting NGOs, and their local authorities; their framing of issues, problems and conflicts; and the nature of their relationships with other community members. Acknowledging the significant achievements of the communities groups in other areas, together with the tremendous courage, determination and generosity of spirit shown by their members, four challenges are posed to groups wishing to activate their transformative potential and take on the important and necessary work of forging spaces to imagine political alternatives and to build coalitions of solidarity and support to bring them about.