Literature Review

Civil society & the APRM

The initial emphasis on promoting the APRM and getting stakeholders to buy in to the process was directed at the international donor community. This saddled the APRM with a perception that the mechanism's primary purpose was to appease the IMF, World Bank and western donor states, and was largely unconcerned with achieving substantial buy-in from African civil societies (Verwey 2005; Deve 2003; Deng 2006). In response to this perception, civil society groups have adopted two approaches: (1) to reject the APRM as a legitimate exercise; and (2) to examine methods which promote greater civil society participation in the APRM process, and advocate for these methods to be adopted.

Those civil society organisations adopting the viewpoint that the APRM does not present itself as a valuable exercise for the continent have on repeated occasions launched severe attacks on the APRM, rejecting it's stated purpose, criticising its design and operations, and most of all condemning the mechanism's architects for imposing a purportedly transparent and consultative process on APRM signatory states without conducting any genuine and broad-based consultations prior to finalising the APRM's design (Verwey 2005; Civil Society Declaration Durban 2002). These criticisms, whilst valid, have impeded civil society participation in the APRM process, as much of the opportunity for early engagement in promoting and understanding the larger implications of the APRM were initially missed by many civil society organisations. Whether this can be attributed to the failure of the APRM's leaders to adequately secure civil society engagement, or whether the negative response by many civil society groupings to the APRM is responsible, a unique opportunity was missed to establish meaningful and mutually beneficial relationships between the official structures of the APRM and African civil society.

In an AfroBarometer survey (http://www.afrobarometer.org) in 2002/3, Len Verwey notes that in eight African countries in which the survey was carried out, civil society respondents were consistently less optimistic about the prospects of NEPAD and the APRM to make an impact in addressing African challenges than government officials and politicians. Verwey argues that this is due in part to information constraints and the availability of and access to information on the APRM from civil society. However, he goes on to argue that the input and impact of civil society in the APRM process presents far greater opportunities to enhance the process than any negative effects that participation might bring. This viewpoint is also held by a number of other analysts, who also stress the importance of civil society participation in the APRM and the contribution that CSOs can make to enhance the legitimacy of the APRM and confidence in its findings (Herbert 2003; Kajee 2004; Landsberg 2002). Verwey further asserts that the importance of civil society engagement in the APRM process is something which needs to be insisted upon, and that active and vigilant monitoring and interventions on the part of civil society within countries is critical to the success of the process. This position is highly critical therefore of the response from some civil society organisations which have rejected the APRM and NEPAD outright, arguing that non-engagement is not a realistic option.

Whilst this second viewpoint has a natural resonance within the larger APRM/NEPAD debate amongst civil society organisations, and has already been used to justify all manner of strategies and interventions by civil society in various states which have or are going to engage in peer review, the question of exactly who and what constitutes civil society engagement is a question which remains largely unexamined within the context of CSO participation in the APRM. Additionally, civil society at the national level must deal with an added layer of complexity in the unique structures and procedures which each country adopts in response to the APRM. This issue is likely to be one of the most challenging and fascinating aspects of the evolution of the APRM on the continent, as government, civil society organisations and pan-African continental structures such as the Pan-African Parliament and the African Union attempt to define a working definition of broad-based civil society engagement in the APRM process. This issue is addressed in more detail in the civil society section of this toolkit.

References

DEVE, T 2003 "Taking a firm stance against NEPAD", presented at African Civil Society Meeting on the Occasion of the 2nd Conference of the Heads of State and Government of the African Union Maputo, Mozambique 27 June - 2 July 2003, [www] http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/development/16447 [opens new window].

DENG, B K 2006 "The African Peer Review Mechanism and its participatory process", Inside AISA, 2, April/May 2006, African Institute of South Africa.

HERBERT, R 2003 "Becoming my brothers keeper" IN eAfrica Newsletter, 1, October 2003, SAIIA Johannesburg.

KAJEE, A 2004 "The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM): A Progress Report: Practical Limitations and Challenges" IN The South African Yearbook of International Affairs 2003/4, SAIIA, Johannesburg, [www] http://www.foundation-development-africa.org/nepad/ nepad_general/nepad_aprm_progress_report.htm.

KEET, D 2002 The New Partnership for Africa's Development and the African Union: Unity and Integration within Africa or Integration of Africa into the global economy, Alternative Information and Development Centre Reprinted 2004.

LANDSBERG, C 2002 "Democratic governance crucial for Africa's future" IN Global Dialogue, 73, November 2002, An International Affairs Review published by the Institute for Global Dialogue.

MALOKA, E 2004 "NEPAD and its critics" IN Africa Insight, 34(4), December 2004.

NEPAD 2002 "Declaration from Civil Society NEPAD meeting", Durban, South Africa 4-8 July 2002.

VERWEY, L 2005 "NEPAD and Civil Society Participation in the APRM", Occassional Papers IDASA - Budget Information Service - Africa Budget Project, [www] www.un-ngls.org/cso/cso8/nepad.pdf [PDF document, opens new window].