Is the Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) making a positive contribution to democratic institution building? This paper, from the Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria, uses an institutional approach to analyse the progress made by the APRM across the countries which have signed up . The APRM is already showing symptoms of becoming ensnared in bureaucracy. Though a worthwhile exercise in political accountability and institution building, scarce resources have been wasted by some of the countries involved as hesitancy by both political and technical staff takes its toll.
The paper focuses on the key APRM institutions – the structures, actors and the element of public participation. It argues that African leaders and governments are in the position of gate-keeper in this review exercise, hence meaningful progress will be difficult to achieve within a reasonable and workable time period. Yet the APRM rises above just being another pan-African process. It is proving to be a positive experience in democratic institution building that will yield benefits in stimulating change in the governance and political culture on the continent.
The APRM attempts to locate developmental solutions within local communities by encouraging and facilitating dialogue between the state and society. It attempts to bridge the divide by bringing the two sides together such that experts attend to issues of knowledge whilst the public attends to issues of political values. However, the process has its limitations:
- Contestation, disputes and delays are caused by the fact that all authority for the reviews rests with government.
- Capacity to gather relevant and reliable information is a major shortcoming for many African countries and the demands of peer review can be overwhelming in such circumstances.
- There are variations and different standards in the quality of supervision by the Panel of Eminent Persons which leads the country reviews.
- Logistical constraints and occasionally lack of political can delay the APRM process.
- The plethora of institutions involved at the national level complicate the process.
- Mistrust of government intentions and the fear of incorporation by government worsen the tension between government and civil society.
Where political tensions are high and trust is low in key political institutions, it cannot be expected that the public will buy into the review process easily. This lack of buy-in can lead to contestation of both the process and the findings.
- The APRM forum would benefit from the strategic guidance provided by a team of experts who would monitor from an informed distance and infuse some much needed objectivity.
- The key issue for all APRM countries is to constitute credible entities that instil confidence in the public.
- The guidance given by the Panel of Eminent Persons needs some level of standardisation.
- Donor hesitancy partly explains the holding back of financial assistance for the APRM process.
- Africa again risks ending up with a proliferation of institutions that often duplicate each other’s functions.
- A convergence in values at the continental level remains a major problem to overcome, particularly given this is yet to be realised at the country level in most cases.
