The practice of “reviewing” in general has nothing to do with the art of criticism.
From Criticism (1893)
by Henry James
INTRODUCTION
In chapter we discussed African political and economic structures and substructures, their efficiency levels both in the national and the pan-African sense, and their contribution to the NEPAD process of implementation IN this chapter the focus is on the monitoring system of African good governance, the APRM.
The chapter starts with (1) a definition of the concepts of “peer”, “review” and “mechanism” and then goes on to discuss (2) the need for the APRM; (3) the functioning of the APRM; (4) the value of the APRM; (5) the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the APRM; (6) the role of the APRM; (7) the accession response to the APRM to date; (8) the role of foreign powers in the creation of the APRM; (10) foreign disillusionment with the APRM; (11) challenges for the democratization process in Africa; and (12) a second invitation for the West to invest in the APRM.
We start definitions of the terms “peer”, “review”, and “mechanism”.
DEFINITIONS
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1973) defines the word “peer” as “an equal in standing or rank; one’s equal before the law; an equal in any respect”.
The word “review” is defined as deriving “from the French revoir (to See again); the act of looking over something again, with a view to correction or improvement; a revision; and inspection or examination; a general survey or reconsideration; a retrospective survey of past actions”.
Finally, the word “mechanism” is described as deriving “from the Latin mechanisms (a machine); the structure or mutual parts, in a machine, or anything comparable to a machine; a system of mutually adapted parts working together”.
Next we discuss the need for the APRM.
THE NEED FOR THE APRM
Mokoena (2003) confirms the view that the way to ensure the performance of African governments and the international acceptability and respectability of the NEPAD plan of action, was to establish a pan-African performance monitoring mechanism. This could provide support for the ideals of the NEPAD strategy and ensure the factors of internal stability within states and regions, generating concerted efforts for the upliftment of the ordinary people in Africa. This monitoring instrument is the APRM. which was created under the Peace and Security Council (PSC), and adopted by the Heads of State and Government Interim committee (HSGIC) at the Durban Summit of the AU in July 2002. The APRM was created to focus on the following: (1) political and governance issues; (2) economic governance and management; (3) corporate governance; and (4) socioeconomic development. In this context we need to consider the functioning of the APRM.
THE FUNCTIONING OF THE APRM
Stals (2004) points out that the APRM exists to serve the interests of all the people living on the African continent. Its objectives are to help ensure good governance, sound macroeconomic policies, responsible socioeconomic development programmes, and good corporate governance-the principles providing the only route to the NEPAD objective of reducing poverty in Africa.
In order to achieve these objectives, the NEPAD Secretariat created a set of rules and procedures, a work pogramme and budget, a provisional list of partner institutions, and guideline for countries participating in the review process. It also prepared a set of questions for countries to answer on the four thematic areas of the APRM: (1) democracy and political governance, (2) economic governance and management, (3) corporate governance, and (4) socioeconomic development (Nabudere 2004b).
In fact, the APRM can be described as sui generic-it is the only tool that exists to monitor good governance and socioeconomic development on a pan-African basis.
How can the value of the APRM be described?
THE VALUE OF THE APRM
The APRM is a voluntary mechanism initiated by the heads of state and governments of African countries to assist all participating countries to accelerate their progress towards adopting and implementing the priorities and programmes of the NEPAD strategy. The AORM is meant to encourage and enable participating member states to adopt policies and practices that conform to the agreed political, socioeconomic and corporate governance development objectives, values, codes and standards contained in the declaration on democracy, political, economic and corporate governance of the AU.
The value of the APRM as a monitoring tool is underscored by the fact that its adherence is on a voluntary basis and that its provisions only affect member states that have acceded to its protocol. It could therefore be said that the APRM wields significant peer influence. It is a self-monitoring mechanism that enhances the primary objectives of NEPAD. However, it should also be recognized that the APRM has a built-in default mechanism: it self-imposes a condition of discrimination on those countries that do not accede to its review process. It consequently serves as a tool for coercion to compel all African countries to join and receive peer recognition.
In summary, the APRM protocol is an accession treaty, the provisions of which do not apply those member countries that have not signed the mandatory Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the African Peer Review Mechanism.
MOU AND THE APRM
The approval of MOU as an accession instrument took place in March 2003, at a meeting of the HSGIC. Rupiya (2005) states that it was created as the mechanism for specifying the commitments, undertakings and obligations of member states, including agreeing to (1) contribute US$100 000 to the APRM Secretarial; (2) conduct self-assessment; (3) facilitate the development of the programme of action; and (4) share best practices by supporting capacity building, and experience, through constructive peer dialogue and persuasion (Mokoena 2003).
The institutions created by the MOU are independent of party political control.
Creation Independent National Councils
In terms of the MOU provisions, the political leaderships of acceding states are required to sacrifice their existing monopoly on power by allowing the creation of independent national councils in which NGOs and civil society are also represented. Through a process of consultation, within and outside its borders, a comprehensive assessment of the country’s strengths and weaknesses then has to be undertaken to prepare for the peer review process.
Within this context we may consider the role of participating countries.
The Role Of participating Countries
The APRM has raised many expectations on the African continent and beyond. It is seen as a critical instrument for advancing reforms in governance and socioeconomic development and in building capacity in Africa countries. However, it stands to reason that these objectives can only be achieved through concerted efforts at the individual country level to engage all national stakeholders in identifying and implementing national priorities. The key principle of the APRM is, therefore, that of national ownership and national leadership.
It is worth re-emphasizing here that the APRM is not a process imposed from outside; it is a self-assessment and self-monitoring system that must, in the first instance, be initiated and conducted by the country itself. The process is meant to promote national dialogue and consensus building on the fundamental development issues among national stakeholders.
The APRM also requires each country to develop a programme of Action with time-bound objectives to guide all stakeholders-government, private sector and civil society-in the actions required to achieve a common development vision.
The APRM panel was created to oversee the self-assessment process in individual countries.
THE ROLE OF THE APRM PANEL.
The principle role of what is known as the Panel of Eminent persons of the APRM is to oversee the conduct of the individual country review process and ensure its integrity. The pane’s role is mainly to support the activities carried out by the country, including proffering advice and providing appropriate technical tools. The panel also serves to gather knowledge based on the experience of individual countries and to facilitate the sharing of best practices.
Lastly, the panel provides leadership for the APRM review missions that have the visit individual African countries and makes recommendations to the conclusion of each review mission.
The Following part of the chapter provides an overview of the historical development of the APRM process.
Historical Development Of the APRM process
The first meeting of the APRM Forum took place in Kigali, Rwanda, in February 2004. At this meeting the budget and the work programme for the proposed timelines for the deployment of Country Support Missions and Country Reviews were agreed. It was also decided that all the countries that has acceded to the APRM system should be reviewed as soon as possible. In consequence Ghana, Mauritius, Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa were put on notice that they would shortly receive review missions.
However, it was soon clear that the fledgling APRM secretariat was experiencing pressure as a result of the workload generated by the Kigali meeting. Its bureaucratic capacity was limited and, in fact, continues to be so to this day. On the one hand, countries were continuing to accede and, on the other, the review process for the various countries targeted at Kigali has to be put in motion. The reality or creating the extensive and detailed APRM self-assessment preliminary survey and establishing independent National Councils in the assenting countries slowed done the proposed Kigali time table and delayed the envisaged rapid pace of implementation envisaged. In consequence the first review mission, that to Ghana, only took place in 2004.
The First APRM Review Mission
In an address at the opening ceremony of the National Stakeholders Forum of the APRM in Ghana on 27 May 2004, Dr Chris Stals, a Member of the APRM panel of Eminent Persons and Review Leader for the African Peer Review support Mission to Ghana, stressed the importance of Ghana being the first country on the African continent to become the subject of scrutiny by the APRM. He said:
A lot of hard work has been put into the preparation for the implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism. Most of the work so far has been “paper” work devoted to the design of a practical operational programme for the implementation of the vision, the ideals and the objectives of many an African leader. We have now reached mission. This occasion is indeed the beginning for the APRM, represented by its panel of Eminent Persons and this Support Mission, to commence working at ground level. We are now moving away from the boardroom, the conference centre, or private studied and patient computers to the real harsh world of the politics, the economics, the serial needs ant the corporate activity of our beloved continent (Stals 2004).
It is important to note that Ghana took the lead in the process of implementing the APRM by (1) creating a ministry or regional cooperation and NEPAD to confirm the commitment of its government to the APRM process; (2) appointing an APRM governing council outside of government with representatives from all stakeholders to guide and lead the self-assessment process within the country; (3) opening an APRM secretariat within the new ministry to serve as a focal point for communication with the panel and to assist the Governing Council; (4) commissioning four technical advisory bodies to assist with the assessment process in the four basic disciplines of political, socioeconomic, macroeconomic and corporate governance respectively; and (5) embarking on a promotion campaign within the country to reach and involve all the stakeholders in the review process.
The accession response to the APRM to date is discussed next.
ACCESSION RESPONSE TO THE APRM
The accession response to the voluntary peer review process from March 2003 December 2004 is reflected in the exhibit below.
Countries that have acceded to the APRM Treaty
No. COUNTRY DATE OF SIGNATURE OF MOU
123456789101112131415161718192021222324 AlgeriaBurkina FasoCameroonRepublic of CongoEthiopiaGabonGhanaKenyaMaliMauritiusMozambiqueNigeriaRwandaSenegalSouth AfricaUganda EgyptBeninMalawiLesothoTanzaniaAngolaSierra LeoneZambia 09March 200309March 200303April 200309March 200309March 200314April 200309March 200309March 200328May 200309July 200309March 200309March 200309March 200309March 200309March 200309March 200309March 200431March 200408July 200408July 200408July 200408July 200408July 200408July 2004
NEPAD Secretariat: APRM Officer, Mufor Atanga. January 2005
From the exhibit is clear that there was voluntary accession by 24 countries and islands out of 53 in less then two years after the launch of the MOU. This should, according to Rupiya (2005), probably be regarded as a far better than average outcome, particularly if it is kept in mind that (1) no equivalent programme has previously existed, (2) the Treaty allows for intrusive investigations into a nation’s political and socioeconomic spheres, and (3) previously, in the charter of the OAU, there was specific exclusion of intervention by other member states in the internal affairs of a country. This time round, however, almost half of the 53 African countries involved have agreed to lay themselves bare to microscopic examination by their peers, including external financial institutions such as the African Development Bank (ADB), United nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) And other external institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF.
Foreign powers have had specific input in the creation of the APRM.
THE ROLE OF FOREIGN POWERS IN THE CREATION OF THE APRM
The introduction for the NEPAD initiative drew muted applause, but also international criticism, because at the outset there was no provision for a monitoring or accounting system to measure progress in the development of good governance and the concomitant political and socioeconomic principles and objectives of the NEPAD plan of action. The question was whether African countries would agree to submit to pan-African and international monitoring.
During the WEF African Summit in Maputo in 2004, Western leaders expressed criticism of the reluctance of African countries to implement a peer review mechanism. It could therefore be argued that pressure from foreign governments made a not insubstantial contribution to the final steps that were taken to implement The APRM.
WESTERN PRESSURE ON THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONING OF THE APRM
Rupiya (2005) refers to “untoward Western pressure on the role and functioning of the APRM” and argues that this pressure led to a mixed response by, for instance, SADC countries to the APRM. He states that, during late 2002, when invited to accede to the APRM process, whilst under pressure from an impatient West, the response of three Southern African states illustrated this mixed response. While South Africa said yes, Botswana said no and Namibia demurred, saying no/yes/but. Namibia, he states, while fully appreciating the import of the APRM, stood in solidarity with Zimbabwe, and did not wish to be dragged into an international quagmire (kenlder & Wiese 2003). Namibia therefore, in the lend, declined to accede to the APRM.
The Namibian and Botswana Decisions
According to Rupiya (2005), the Namibian Foreign Minister explained that his country perceived the APRM as an instrument through which African countries would assist each other in consolidating political stability and democracy-not necessarily a punitive mechanism. As a result, Namibia would adhere to all the principles and provisions of the APRM, but would not sign up formally. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe’s neighbor, Botswana, continued to maintain what Rupiya categorizes as “unblemished progress towards good governance, leading to political stability and economic growth”. However, its political leadership decided not becomes involved in the APRM under the prevailing conditions, since it did not wish to become a pawn in the wider struggle that was taking place in which the APRM could be seen as a mechanism through which the West-Zimbabwe struggle was being pursued.
In similar vein, Celliers (2003:1) refers to the spat that developed at the same time when the Canadian prime minister at the time, Jean Cretien, wrote an open letter to South African president, Thabo Mbeki, warning that the G8 and other donor countries were seriously concerned about the weaknesses that were associated with the APRM and that, I these were not addressed, support would be withheld.
The Decisions Of the three SADC Countries
Rupiya (2005) argues that the decisions made by the three SADC states are significant since they reflect the contradictions associated with the birth of the APRM. They also demonstrate the level of external pressure and misperceptions that have led a number of AU member states to partly disown a mechanism o their own creation.
However, it would seem that it is fair to say that there is growing foreign disillusionment with the APRM.
FOREIGN DISILLUSIONMENT WITH THE APRM
According to Rupiya (ibid), there is mounting evidence that Africa’s donor partners in NEPAD have become seriously disillusioned with the peace and Security Arm of the AU, perceived as lacking political will and not prepared to crack the whip at recalcitrant members in its ranks.
He states that
…walking the corridors of the AU’s headquarters and UN Agencies in Addis Ababa recently, one was struck by the resignation of officials to this unannounced withdrawal of support by Western countries based on the assumption that the African Peer Review (APRM) died a stillbirth.
None of the numerous officials spoken to was prepared to be named as a source while agreeing to express their views as anonymous respondents. In their view part of the explanation for current Western disengagement was the unfortunate association that the West created of the APRN, as an instrument that should have dealt with the Zimbabwe crisis that began in 2000 and deteriorated markedly in 2002, coinciding with the birth of the APRM.
What are the contemporary challenges facing the democratization process in Africa?
CHALLENGES FOR THE DEMOCRATISATION PROCESS IN AFRICA
When examining the positive discernible outcomes of the APRM process itself, it is important to recognize some of the challenges that many African states face. These challenges often have crosscutting implications for several African countries rather than being unique to single states. Rupiya (ibid) identifies four major challenges: (1) the challenge of introducing democracy: (2) the problems created by long-reigning personalities or political parties; (3) the challenge presented by military regimes; and (4) the challenge of weak or collapsed states.
These challenges will be discussed one by one in the following sections.
The Challenge Of Introducing Democracy
In Rupiya’s view (ibid) the first major challenge for African countries is to introduce democratization in a form that, on the one hand, breaks with the tradition of the parties that took over from colonial powers, while, on the other hand, retaining positive elements of that inheritance. Most political parties that inherited political power from the departing colonial authorities have become personalized institutions, insulated form their own societies. Consequently, any threat to their political grip results tin a national crisis.
Moreover, since the end of the Cold War a new phenomenon has been witnessed on the African continent. This is the unwillingness of former liberation movements, now in government, to leave office in favor of political opposition that does not boast liberation credentials. Another element of this phenomenon is that, one in office, many of the liberation movements transformed their former military factions to become the cores of standing armies. This obviously has national security implications when it comes to eventual political change. Therefore, using the moral high ground of liberation struggle politics, incumbents in power have sought to perpetuate their sty in office in a manner that has in fact turned the earlier democratization quest on its head.
The problems Created By Long-Reining Personalities Or Political Parties The second major challenge according to Rupiya (ibid) concerns long-reigning personalities or political parties that do not create or leave behind sustainable institutions capable of delivering democratic transition. Events surrounding the departure of former Zaire president, Mobutu Se Seko, and the late Nigerian strongman, General Sani Abacha, testify to this assertion. the same situation is now found in the DRC. In this context, it could be said that such regimes are characterized by deformed or nonperforming parliaments as well as little or no political participation by nationals.
The challenge Of Military Regimes
Rupiya (ibid) states that the third major challenge is that of military regimes, some of which have tried to civilianize themselves and hold sham elections in a bid to continue in office. Without specifically identifying some of these rather well-known cases, suffice it to say that these regimes are all members of the AU and have continued to exist through a process of peer toleration despite the Harare Declaration of 1997, which banned military coup on the African continent.
The Challenge Of Weak Or Collapsed States
Rupiya (ibid) identifies yet another challenge as the uniquely African political phenomenon of weak or collapsed states. Somalia, after the withdrawal of military strongman Siad Barre in the 1990s, has degenerated into a nonstate. The most recent example of how fragile an African state can become was the rapid diminution in governmental ability of the Cote d’Ivoire after 2003. Within months, the state was confined to controlling only parts of the capital, while month, the state was confined to controlling only parts of the capital and dominated the North.
Can the skepticism of western governments about the APRM be turned around?
A SECOND INVITATION FOR THE WEST TO INVEST IN THE APRM
Rupiya (ibid) contends that a second invitation is required to persuade the West to yet again invest in the APRM in order to pull Africa from the abyss of conflict, poverty and mismanagement. He believes this is not impossible given the evolution of the APRM since its inauguration in July 2002. A critical examination of this process will demonstrate, as was done above, that about half of AU member states have acceded to the APRM-demonstrating the appreciable democratization and good governance potential of the APRM process. Thus the creation of the APRM might well be regarded as the most important democratization event in Africa since Harold Macmillan’s “Winds of Change” speech in 1960 to the South African parliament.
SUMMARY
In this chapter we defined the concepts “peer”, “review” and “mechanism”. WE then discussed the need for the APRM, reviewed ifs functioning and value and considered the MOU in the context of the APRM. The role of the APRM panel and the accession response to the APRM to date were then analyzed and juxtaposed with the role of foreign powers in the creation of the APRM, Western pressure on the role and functioning of the APRM, and foreign disillusionment with the APRM. The chapter concluded with an overview of the challenges for the democratization process in Africa and the possibility of issuing a second invitation for the West to invest in the APRM.
In conclusion it could be said that the APRM is the most important supporting structure behind on the African continent and abroad. Since March 2003 a substantial number of African countries have declared themselves willing to submit to peer review. These countries have shown that they are ready to transform into mature and stable democracies. A number of these countries have since moved into the second phase of the APRM process, that of creating institutions capable of managing the review process over the next five to seven years.
The downside of this projection is that, despite the best of intentions, the final stages of individual country reviews to be conducted by the APRM panel are unlikely to be completed within a ten-year time frame, given the lack of capacity both at national and pan-African levels to provide an effective and timely implementation of the peer review mechanism.
In conclusion, it should however be recognized that the new generation of African political leaders is determined to wrest the continent from its history of perennial impoverishment and marginalization from global development. This determination is secured by NEPAD and the APRM, which have the capability of creating conditions conducive to peace, security, sustainable economic growth and poverty alleviation on the African continent.
