Is the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) an effective instrument for promoting peace and stability in Africa? How successfully does it address the links between peace, governance and development? This article from The African Security Review critically examines how the APRM self-assessment questionnaire covers conflict detection and prevention. Reviewing the first three APRM country reports, from Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda, it questions whether the APRM is an effective instrument for promoting peace. While the APRM could be useful in describing sources of conflict and tension, Africa should not rely on the APRM alone to prevent conflict.
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) recognises that peace promotes prosperity, while bad governance engenders conflict, which in turn seriously stifles development. The APRM, an outgrowth of NEPAD, is a voluntary African self-monitoring initiative. It seeks, amongst other things, to contribute to conflict prevention by examining a number of security-related issues, identifying problems and proposing solutions. Yet while APRM reports from Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda identify important causes of conflict, they yield nothing not already widely known. In addition the remedies they suggest are vague and generic.
The APRM has the potential to be a useful diagnostic instrument in identifying potential fault lines. The practical utility of the APRM as a conflict prevention tool, however, is constrained by several weaknesses, including:
- A poorly structured questionnaire and loose framing of questions – the questionnaire fails to ask some tough questions and focuses on description rather than evaluation. It is long, complex and poorly organised, making effective analysis difficult.
- The leeway given to countries in developing their responses – while Ghana and Kenya used independent researchers for the self assessment, Rwanda used government personnel exclusively. Rwanda’s report thus downplayed contentious issues.
- Insufficient interrogation of issues excluded or downplayed in self-assessment – in the case of Rwanda, for example, the APR Panel failed to challenge the government on serious allegations of adventurism and well-documented cases of aggression.
- The non-confrontation ethos of the process and the non-binding nature of the panel’s recommendations – the APRM lacks explicit sanctions for non-compliance, relying instead on peer pressure, which participating leaders have failed to exert meaningfully.
The effectiveness of the APRM could be improved by implementing the following broad policy recommendations:
- A questionnaire that asks sharper questions, gives greater guidance on conflict causes, includes human and state security in one section and demands evaluation;
- Country review missions that are better prepared in advance of arrival in the country, with experts better informed about local circumstances and context;
- More rigour by the Panel of Eminent Persons in interrogating self-assessment reports; and
- Countries using the opportunities that the APRM presents, by initiating inclusive national policy dialogue on difficult issues in order to work on innovative, sustainable solutions.
