1. Background

To orientate Members of Parliament on the philosophy and context of the African Peer Review Mechanism, a workshop was held at Parliament on 3 November 2005. Presentations were given by representatives from the Africa Institute of South Africa, the South African Human Rights Commission and the United Nations Development Fund.

2. Contextualising the African Peer Review Mechanism

Dr Eddy Maloka, Africa Institute of South Africa

The presentation focused on the following key areas:

• Paradigm behind the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM)
• Key principles
• Future Challenges

Dr. Maloka outlined the early African development path including the nature of the postcolonial state.

Postcolonial independence and reconstruction in Africa from the 1960s through to the 1990s focused on industrialisation, growth, meeting basic needs and consolidating independence. Historically the emphasis was on political freedom and consolidating independence. The African development project occurred during the height of the Cold War, which negatively impacted on development. War and instability contributed to the destruction of physical infrastructure and human capital. Africa experienced several decades of war, instability, one party rule, dictatorships and Cold War conflict. This has had negative implications for human development, economic growth and democracy. With the end of the Cold War during the 1990s a consensus began to unfold on the African continent based upon peace and security. The link between development and peace was asserted. Several countries on the African continent are classified as heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs) as defined by the World Bank. Many countries on the continent are unable to finance their own budgets and meet the needs of people.

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) represents a consensus on the African development project. It begins to chart the development path in an inclusive manner and redefines Africa’s foreign economic relations. It also begins to question practice in the political and economic terrain. NEPAD makes an objective assessment of the challenges faced by African countries, asserts African leadership, recognises African history and calls for countries to support the African development project.

A key element of the African development project is the system of peer review. Part of the new political consensus is the realisation that development cannot be sustained in the absence of oversight, public participation, democracy, accountability and transparency. The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) must be seen within this political context. Dr. Maloka noted that it is not a judicial enquiry but a peer review involving peer pressure, multi-stakeholder involvement and national dialogue. Public participation and debate forms an important element of the process. The APRM process is an independent process that measures performance, provides feedback so as to improve performance and benchmarks best practice. International best practice has been used in constructing the African peer review model e.g. the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) peer review process. The four areas of the APRM review includes:

• Democracy and Good Political Governance
• Economic Governance and Management
• Corporate Governance
• Socio-Economic Development

The role of the State is an important element in the analysis of the APRM process. While the APRM process assumes a definite role for the State and is against the minimal State, at an economic level it assumes the governance of a capitalist economy. The APRM emphasises that people have a right to basic necessities and to participate in the governance of a country. While not diminishing the responsibility of the State it was noted by participants that the State does not have control over all political and economic factors.

Dr. Maloka noted that the first wave of reviews is being conducted on the African continent. Continental institutions need to review the tools of the APRM and the process itself with the objective of adding value to the system. In trying to stimulate debate he noted that under certain contexts the questionnaire could be too prescriptive. Some of the issues suggested include targeted reviews that are topic-specific, standardisation, scope of the review and grading of countries.

The presentation warned against non-compliance and called for strong peer pressure to ensure compliance with democratic principles.

Some of the questions and discussion focused on the role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the APRM process. It was noted that these multilateral institutions have expressed support for the APRM process but that greater synchronisation is needed between the APRM process and programmes of multilateral institutions. The presenter noted that African countries should become less dependent on external finance and should reach a position of being able to finance domestic development.

Commentators have noted that the OECD peer review process is regarded as advanced and represents international best practice. It was noted that while countries can learn from applied experience the specificities of the domestic context should always be the focus of a review. Flexibility has been built into the questionnaire so as to take account of social, economic, political and historical differences between countries. Ghana redefined the APRM questionnaire so as to adapt the questionnaire to the domestic context.

The presentation promoted serious discussions on questions of inclusivity, exclusivity, grading, ranking, peer pressure, compliance, non-compliance, tolerance of differences and stigmatisation. There was general consensus on the need for countries to be reviewed. Members of Parliament cautioned that the APRM should not be a club of the few. There is a need to ensure an inclusive process and the review system must implement corrective measures for countries that receive poor reviews. The presenter proposed that countries be graded and ranked. It was proposed that grading should not be seen as punitive but rather as promoting democracy, oversight and public participation.

Democratic institutions in the various countries and public participation should play a key role in the APRM process.

1. APRM Processes

Dr. John Tesha, Africa Institute of South Africa

The presentation was conveyed in the form of a critique in order to enhance the understanding of Members of Parliament of the process. The presentation critically considered four areas of importance, i.e.

1. The relevance of the APRM. The presenter expressed a need to interrogate the process and procedures, particularly the questionnaire. In addition, South Africa should learn from the experience of the 26 countries that have gone through the process.
2. The process and procedures are too general, which does not do justice to the process.
3. Inequalities between and among the states that are being reviewed.
4. Magnitude of poverty in most of the countries being reviewed undermines the effectiveness of the process and procedures.

APRM process and procedures fall within the scope of many African processes that have previously been introduced with enthusiasm, only to fail due to lack of commitment by countries. In this regard, the APRM is only one of a succession of monitoring mechanisms to be introduced in Africa in addition to other instruments such as the African Charter, and the African charter on the child. The speaker stated strongly that if the APRM is to be successful, this practice has to change in the continent.

In ensuring the effectiveness of the APRM process, it is firstly important to explore the idea of a "self-monitoring mechanism", which implies that countries that volunteer to be reviewed have the capacity and resources to monitor themselves, as well as the required commitment. The principle of self-monitoring also implies values such as credibility, integrity and professionalism.

Regarding the credibility of procedures, the desired objective of the APRM is to foster the adaption of policies, standards and practices that will lead to economic stability, high economic growth, and sustainable development and accelerated regional economic integration. However, the ability of the questionnaire to assist countries in reaching this objective is questionable due to the fact that the questionnaire is too academic, generalised as well as too prescriptive in certain instances. The speaker felt that none of the countries would be able to answer any of the questions in the questionnaire satisfactorily.

• There is no information on the ground that participating states can use as a benchmark. It is therefore difficult to assess whether the process is achieving its desired goals. It is therefore critical to evaluate the processes from the start by analysing and evaluating the experiences of countries that have already gone through the process such as Ghana, Rwanda and Mauritius and to evaluate whether the expected outcomes of the process were achieved.
• The notion of "peer review" is also a cause for concern. In this regard, the Speaker suggested that members of the APRM (the "peers") must be accepted on the basis of certain requirements regarding democracy, corporate governance and social responsibility. The purpose of having such criteria would be to provide a benchmark or reference point for the review. Furthermore, although countries currently volunteer to be reviewed, it should be possible to subject countries to peer review in the event of gross human rights violations. This is a future possibility to be reviewed by the African Union (AU).
• Faithful reporting regarding the processes is critical. In addition, the process should not be used for external influence (e.g. to the IMF or World Bank, or as any other credit reference), but rather for the benefit of individual countries. It is thus important that the process remain as credible and professional as possible by avoiding its externalisation and making it exclusively African and putting African resources in it.
• Although the importance of civil society in the process is undisputed, it is important to note that civil society in the continent relies heavily on external resources, much like their governments. Thus it is questionable that civil society themselves won’t be compromised on some of these issues.
• Upon completion, the final report is returned to the panel and it is not clear how the panel utilises it. It is thus a matter of concern that the public does not subject the report to a discussion; and therefore cannot hold the government accountable. Part of the problem comes from the fact that not enough consultation is done from the beginning of the process.

Regarding funding, South Africa is the only African country that can hold elections without external funding. Therefore, most countries are not in a position to fund processes of this nature. Thus, there are critical internal problems that Africa should tackle before it can effectively undertake a process such as the APRM. In addition, countries that accept to be reviewed must have a serious political commitment, which is only available through bold and wide consultation at national level.

Countries that have voluntarily acceded to APRM also need assistance, particularly financially. In addition, capacity, resources and commitment must be established to make the process credible and to get the procedures to an internationally acceptable level.

• Concerns were expressed regarding the possibility of avoiding outside influences, particularly given the dynamics of the African political environment and the stated fact that both governments and civil society are heavily dependent on international aid.
• Despite the past challenges in the continent, the AU and the APRM structures are now firmly established to assist in strengthening democratic principles in Africa. Ideally, the composition of the APRM team should be countries that have succeeded in creating democracy. It would however, not be ideal to exclude countries on the basis of past errors as this could impact negatively on those that genuinely seek to reform their policies. Instead, the intention to transform should be considered. The APR should be able to offer assistance to these countries as a way of encouraging more and more countries to be reviewed.
• The presentation cautioned Members to problems that could arise, as has happened with other monitoring processes in Africa. South Africa is a new democracy and filled with enthusiasm to go into the peer review process and there are many African countries that South Africa can learn from in proceeding with the process.
• The Parliaments of some of the countries did not participate and the element of separation of powers is not as strong in other countries as it is in South Africa. It is therefore a challenge to locate the South African Parliament in all of this and pave a way forward. In addition, South Africa has severe capacity gaps and needs specific suggestions on how to accelerate and resolve these capacity problems.

• The experiences of other countries, based on the procedures and processes that were used have not necessarily provided the answers that were anticipated by the APRM. Resources, including capacity resources, should enable South Africa to do a better job, particularly since South Africa is in a position to learn from other countries. In addition, the procedures should not be universal. Although there can be standard procedures, they must also be country-specific. Therefore, the questionnaire should be adapted to the country as well.

• In terms of procedure, South Africa should be able to establish the National Committee and look into the procedures to be applied. It is also important to consider the procedures that were followed in other countries such as Ghana and Rwanda and to assess whether these are suitable for South Africa or whether there is a need for the instruments to be adapted to our country. Secondly, it is important to consider who will be involved in the APRM at the national level.

• It is important to consider our past in order to pave the way for the future. In reviewing countries, we raise issues of leadership and expectations of citizens and we explore whether the country is meeting the expectations of the people. The peer review is not an end in itself – it is a means to an end and the end is about a better life for Africa’s people.

• Orientation is about looking at both sides of a situation so as to get a broader picture, including the pitfalls of the process and in the procedures. Even though the APRM is not a scorecard, it is important to know where we are starting and where we are going and it is important to make a benchmark. The speaker also stated that it is a fact that many countries in the continent consider their APRM ratings as a very good basis for external funding. In addition, those countries that have resources must try as much as they can to make the process African. At the end of the day it’s about the people of South Africa. The issue of external capacity is very important and South Africa has many institutions and we have the capacity. Look into the 26 countries and ask ourselves how we can do it better.

1. Locating Parliament within the APRM Process

Advocate Tseliso Thipanyane, South African Human Rights Commission

The presentation focussed on three key areas, i.e:

1. The objectives and mandate of the APRM - The presenter highlighted one of the mandates of the APRM as being to ensure that each participating State carefully assess its own situation through a broad participatory process, led by the Government, that results in a programme of action with time-bound objectives to guide all stakeholders through the actions required by Government, the private sector and civil society to achieve the country’s vision. This process will result in the development of a Programme of Action through which the aims of the New Partnership For Africa’s Development (NEPAD), i.e. political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development, as well as accelerated sub-regional and continental economic integration, can be achieved.

South Africa’s peer review will assume the form of a self-assessment, which is based on an APRM Questionnaire, developed for this purpose. The Questionnaire contains four core focus areas of assessment, i.e. democracy and good political governance, economic governance and management, corporate governance and socio-economic development. The presenter cautioned that the questions contained in the questionnaire might have to be adapted to align it with South Africa’s realities, but was optimistic that the questionnaire at least provides a minimum framework for assessment to which States are at liberty to add in order to give effect to their own objectives.

2. The role of Parliament and its structures in the review process - The presenter emphasised the importance of revisiting Parliament’s Constitutional mandate to enable it to define its role in the APRM process. These include Parliament’s duty, as the elected representative of the people, to scrutinise and oversee the actions of the Executive and any Organ of State, and to establish mechanisms that will enable it to exercise its oversight function effectively (sections 42 and 55).

In the opinion of the presenter, Parliament’s Constitutional mandate empowers it to play a useful and meaningful role during stages 1, 2 and 5 of the APRM process in respect of two key areas, i.e. development and monitoring. The development role has two facets. Firstly, it entails Parliament using its mandate and powers to provide a public forum for the consideration of national issues to ensure greater public participation and input in the development and conceptualisation of the country’s Programme of Action during stage 1 of the process. Secondly, it entails Parliament using the wealth of information at its disposal to contribute towards the development of the country’s Programme of Action and to engage the APRM on its analysis of the Programme of Action during stage 2 of the process. The monitoring role entails Parliament using its mandate and powers to provide a public forum for the consideration of national issues when the APRM report is publicised during stage 5 of the process and monitoring the implementation of recommendations contained in the APRM report. The presenter emphasised the importance of the relationship between Parliament and Constitutional Institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) in ensuring that the implementation of the APRM report is monitored effectively, as these Institutions have been established by the Constitution and other legislation to assist Parliament in its oversight function over the Executive. It does so by reporting to Parliament on the extent to which the Executive is giving effect to the human rights contained in the Bill of Rights and its international human rights obligations.

3. Challenges and recommendations for Parliament - The presenter highlighted the following challenges facing Parliament in its participation in the APRM process and suggested actions, which, if not given serious consideration, could render the review process ineffective. These are:

• Parliament needs to improve its engagement with Constitutional Institutions such as the SAHRC and the CGE to make such engagement more efficient and effective, in order to enhance its role in the peer review process.
• There is a need to broaden awareness-raising around the APRM process. This awareness raising campaign should not only be limited to Members of Parliament, but should also have an external focus to ensure that the electorate is informed and can participate.
• Parliament needs to intervene where the Executive delays in submitting country reports in terms of treaties, as the APRM process cannot be conducted in isolation from other human rights monitoring systems.
• Parliament needs to ensure that country treaty reports are of sufficient quality.
• There is a lack of resources to collect data and conduct analyses in relation to human rights monitoring.
• The role of civil society organs in human rights monitoring is limited.
• Country treaty reports and the remarks of reporting bodies on these reports are not adequately publicised.
• There is a need for Parliament to consider and respond to issues raised by monitoring mechanisms created in terms of legislation such as the Access to Information Act and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
• South Africa has not yet ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, Parliament has thus far failed to intervene in this regard.
• The fact that most of the relevant documents relating to the APRM process are only available in English creates a language barrier which makes it inaccessible to people.

The following issues for consideration were raised during the discussion and question session following the presentation:

• Two possible roles for Parliament in the APRM process have emerged. Firstly, Parliament has the option of limiting its involvement to exercising its oversight function during the 3 specific stages of the process in which the Executive has invited it to participate. This option would give Parliament substantial powers that should not be underestimated, as, in the interest of transparency, having the assessment report tabled in Parliament and commented on will help to ensure that the process is opened up and that the notion of a report developed in secret by Government without the option of public input, is dispelled. Secondly, Parliament envisages a parallel participating role for itself and has established structures in the form of joint ad hoc committees to give effect to this process. However, the questions that arise are:

• What are the factors that distinguish the process embarked upon by Parliament from that of the Governing Council process and how can these processes be harmonised?
• How will Parliament’s process fit in with the process of the Governing Council, i.e. will it be incorporated into the report of the Governing Council, or will it be submitted as a separate report?
• How will Parliament respond to its oversight role during the stages it has been invited to participate in?

Caution was raised that the integration of the Parliamentary report into the Governing Council’s report might defeat the purpose of Parliament’s involvement in the APRM process. Thus, it is important for Parliament to decide for itself what the objective is that it wants to achieve, and to take action commensurate with that decision.

• There is a need to clarify Parliament’s perception of the Constitutional requirement of the separation of powers principle within the context of the APRM. For example, how will the fact that Parliament is not represented on the Governing Council affect the process?

• There is a need for ad hoc committees to identify best practice methods in responding to the objectives of the questionnaire and to adopt such methods.

• There is a need to gain common understanding of the self-critique component of the assessment process, in order to avoid competitiveness based on negative responses. As such, participating parties should be able to encourage dialogue and self-criticism, and tolerate opposing ideas.
• The APRM process cannot be conducted in isolation. Instead, it must be linked to similar global processes.

1. Public Participation in the APRM

Dr. Biong Kuol Deng, Africa Institute of South Africa

Dr. Deng stated that one of the fundamental pillars of the APRM process is to encourage participation of all sectors of society, as well as national institutions in the evaluation process.

He indicated that a lack of participation of civil society groups, especially urban and rural communities, was one of the reasons for the demise of many previous continental economic and developmental programmes.

Dr. Deng further pointed out in terms of inclusivity, the Ghana and Rwanda review reports identified a number of best practices that could be use to strengthen the South African APRM process.

• The methods that could be used to reach as many people as possible were seen as critical to the success of the process. Dr Deng indicated that the basic principle of the process is broad public participation. Therefore, there is a need to use as broad a means of communication as possible. He stated that Parliament should consider using the county’s various languages to communicate and explain the process to the people of South Africa.

• Dr Kimaryo argued that there is need to view the questionnaire as a moral minimum. Therefore, it needs to be adapted to suit individual country conditions in order to ensure that the process achieves its objectives. She indicated that there is a need for Parliament to ensure that it uses the questionnaire as a standard framework, while also devising other mechanisms and information that could be useful in ensuring a comprehensive review process. During discussion participants addressed the value that the participation of Parliament could bring to the APRM process. Dr Kimaryo indicated that it is the first time that a Parliament has such active involvement in an APRM review. This would ensure that the South African APRM process is holistic and comprehensive. It will also set an example for other African States to strengthen the role of Parliaments in the APRM.

1. The Millennium Development Goals and the APRM

Dr. Scholastica Kimaryo, United Nations Development Fund

Dr Kimaryo provided an overview of the 2005 World Summit Outcome that was held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 14 to 16 September 2005. She argued that the Summit provided an effective platform for Governments, world leaders, civil society and donor agencies to make a strong and unambiguous commitment towards implementing the Millennium Development Goals.

Dr Kimaryo indicated an additional $50 billion a year was committed to fight poverty. World Leaders agreed to adopt national plans for achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Dr. Kimaryo indicated that progress on the implementation of the commitments towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals could form part of the peer review in the context of the APRM.

6.1. Discussion

Further clarity was sought on how South Africa’s report on the Millennium Development Goals could be used to strengthen Parliament’s engagement with the indicators and progress outlined by the Executive to the Summit. Dr Kimaryo indicated that it is imperative that South Africa uses the indicators of the Millennium Development Goals to strengthen its APRM report. She stated that the South African report contains a comprehensive review of the implementation of the goals. Therefore, Parliament should also consider the South African report during its deliberations on progress on the implementation of the goals.

 

2. Conclusion

Some Members felt that the workshop did not meet their expectations in that it did not address the specific steps in the APRM process and how Parliament would play a role in these. It was agreed that Parliament’s Joint Coordinating Committee on the APRM and the Joint ad hoc Committees should have discussions to reach consensus on the role of Parliament in the APRM and the approach of Parliament to the self-assessment questionnaire.