|
Africa, organised as the African Union is in the fragile process of building complementary democratic institutions as well as establishing norms, values and relevant practices. One of these, following closely behind the Pan African Parliament (PAP) is the voluntary African Peer Review (APRM) Mechanism. So far, 29 African countries have signed up to the peer review process by the AU. An important component of the APRM process is that it compels governments to consult broadly with civil society and depend on an independent assessment as to the relevance of its democratic-political, social and economic performance. In undertaking the APRM process after a country has indicated to the AU that it is willing to be subjected to the process, is to allow in a team under the auspices of the AU who consults widely and after 18 months, come up with an Action Plan to address identified flaws.
In the case of SA, Nigerian respected academic Prof Adebayo Adedeji led the team that assessed the country. However, here was the first break by SA with subjecting itself to the voluntary process. Late in 2006, the APRM Assessment team produced an adverse report, citing over 150 recommendations that the country had to address in order to meet the values, norms and democratic expectations of its peoples. This report was then expected to be submitted to the AU Heads of Government in Addis Ababa to be followed by a second submission to the 26 participating Heads of State and Government in Ghana in June 2007. More broadly, the APRM criticised SA on the levels of high crime rates and seeming state inability to respond; increased incomes differentiation; huge unemployment and a lack of focus of economic policy in its pro-poor emphasis.
However, on January 18, SA delivered a blistering letter to the AU APRM Secretariat calling into contradiction the following: a) The figures used by the APRM team sought to confirm, tangentially, the perception that this was a racist endeavour as well as the hopelessness of the African situation - exactly what this argument is all about is actually puzzling!
b) On the standstill position seemingly on the reform of the judiciary - the SA government argues that the Team relied on its interaction with certain stakeholders who have interpreted the draft Bills incorrectly - is must be pointed out that some of the powers sought by the presidency so worried the renowned Judge Bizzos and Goldstone - ANC stalwarts to join the legal fraternity in criticizing the Minister of Justice and government towards the middle of last year.
c) On the contention that Affirmative action has driven whites out of the public service - the State argues that although true, this was because many of them were at odds with the spirit of the transformation in the country AND SO ON AND SO FORTH
The important point to draw is if SA challenges the evolving APRM process, a country perceived to be steeped in democracy and human rights, then this is going to send a strong and adverse precedent to other outright dictatorships on the African continent. Secondly, SA seeming knee-jerk reaction is likely to dent and undermine the APRM mechanism that is likely now to suffer a still-birth. Thirdly, SA reaction appears also to confirm the radical rejection of the APRM by Botswana, a country thought to have been able to meet all criteria but refused to volunteer as it sensed a political agenda, especially from the West to use the APRM tool to beat over the heads of some African countries; the same is also true of Namibia, one of the few countries that has been publicly and internationally admitted as likely to meet the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) as set out by the UN by 2015 - Windhoek again appeared to smell a rat in the APRM and refused to volunteer. The point we are making is this, for now isolated trend now in the light of SA behaviour may well become a deluge or guide of the other 20 odd countries still outside. Finally, SA new stance has been adopted without consultation with civil society and NGOs, many of them who had gladly participated in the APRM assessment process who have now been marginalized in the government response. This has left many furious. Zanele Twala, a delegate representing the SA Coaltion of NGOs ---supported by the labour union, COSATU, has since written to Prof Adedeji and the SA point-person Minister of Public Service and Administration, Geraldine Frasere-Moleketi, expressing concern about the finalization of the report and what government was committing itself without consultation with civil society. While the Minister of Public Service now argues that the state was within its rights to go ahead without consulting civil society, the founding APRM memorandum asserts that: "member states should ensure the participation of all stakeholders in the development of national programme of action."
While the yellow light has been on around the APRM process, SA government has jumped the traffic lights and the red light is now blazoning against the APRM mechanism and one of the very core institutions of democratic practice of the AU, based on voluntarism but with a number of sceptical member states still outside its remit. Because the process is voluntary, Prof Adedeji has no power except moral-suasion and civil society in SA is convinced the ANC government has clear tendencies as witnessed in Zimbabwe where civil society is still to be recognized as an important stakeholder for stability and development.
|
Authors 
Posted by Robot| 17.05.2007 09:18