|
NEPAD promises incremental change by participating countries, with each moving from different positions at its
own speed.
The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is generally considered the most innovative aspect of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). It represents an ambitious attempt by key African countries to lever themselves out of the cycle of poverty and instability to which the continent has been condemned, by taking responsibility for the maintenance of appropriate standards of conduct.
Recently there has been much controversy around both NEPAD and the APRM. Days ahead of the 5th NEPAD Heads of State Implementation Committee (HSIC) meeting in Abuja on 3rd November 2002, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad revealed the compromise position that would be discussed in Nigeria. Instead of political review, as well as economic and corporate review, the APRM would be limited to the latter. The African Union would be responsible for political review through its various structures, a number of which are not yet in existence.
The negative reaction in the South African media and amongst Africa’s development partners was strong-based on the G8
understanding that the Partnership included a common commitment to democracy, pluralism, and electoral
fairness, amongst others. Although framed delicately, the communiquй that was released after the Abuja meeting
reaffirmed Pahad’s blunt admission and even went a step further, providing for the long-awaited harmonization of the
prospective peer review processes within the AU Commission with that of NEPAD. The NEPAD secretariat is now formally recognized as an interim
arrangement, pending the completion of the transition process to the African Union, where after it would be
fully integrated into the Commission of the Union.
A closer reading of the results of various earlier NEPAD meetings and documents would indicate that
the issue of democracy, human rights and good governance had long been discussed as more deeply integrated into the African Union rather than as part
of the NEPAD APRM secretariat and its activities and that resistance from a number of African governments
to remove political review from NEPAD was not new.
It is equally evident that the NEPAD partners and the donor community, the G8 in particular, have been
guilty of creating expectations around the Partnership and its peer review mechanism that were practically
unrealistic and politically impossible. Since the purpose of the Abuja meeting was to finalise the
modalities around the peer review mechanism, time had run out and hard choices had to be made.
From the start NEPAD had been promising a process of self-monitoring and what is now being called ‘peer
learning’. The experience within the Organization for Economic Cooperation in Europe (OECD), from which
NEPAD is taking its cue, is that of a non-adversarial and collegial process, relying on mutual trust
and understanding between countries being reviewed. NEPAD promises incremental change by participating
countries, with each moving from different positions at its own speed.
Different from the internal technical purpose of the OECD process, NEPAD is about a quid pro quo between
developing countries and Africa. If developed countries see improvements in the political economic and social
circumstances of Africa, they will give, in return, greater concessions in trade and aid.
|
|
- 149Kb ~ 1 min (12 pages)
