Displaying items by tag: APRM
This report examines three prominent Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) – the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and Open Government Partnership (OGP) through the dual lenses of peer learning and peer pressure. The term “peers” implies a degree of equality between the participating parties. Peer review is defined as examinations that are systematic in their nature, of a state by another state(s), specifically designated institutions or a combination of the two. In MSIs, peer reviews are premised on mutual trust, non-confrontation, and the principle of non-coercive persuasion. The ultimate goal is to help member states improve their policy-making, adopt best practices, and comply with established standards and principles. Based on this analysis, the OGP and EITI have been successful in promoting peer learning and have exercised peer pressure when necessary. The APRM, however, lags significantly behind its counterparts. (by Yarik Turianskyi and Matebe Chisiza)
This report examines four African states (Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Tanzania), and their membership in three multi-stakeholder initiatives: the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and the Open Government Partnership (OGP).1 These four case studies offer valuable lessons. High-level political commitment is vital to sustained implementation of MSIs. International pressure can also increase (or diminish) political will. Some states lack the financial and human resources necessary to implement change, which adversely affects success of MSIs. Other trends among these cases are the lack of legitimacy in MSI reports due to unsubstantiated claims and poor drafting, the reporting burden of member states to multiple MSIs, and the weak implementation of supporting domestic legislation. As the case countries are party to multiple MSIs, there is a tendency towards overlapping and duplicating efforts, therefore emphasizing a need for better harmonization and synergy. (by Matebe Chisiza, Steven Gruzd, Ross Harvey, Aditi Lalbahadur, Carmel Rawhani and Yarik Turianskyi)
Active citizen participation is an important component of democracy. Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) attempt to enhance civic participation as a means of improving governance through cooperation by governments, civil society organizations (CSOs), and businesses to engage in commonly defined goals. This report evaluates the experiences of civil society participation one such MSI – the Open Government Partnership (OGP) – in Georgia, South Africa, and Indonesia. A global initiative with 70 countries and 15 subnational governments as current members, the OGP seeks to enhance government transparency, and support civic participation in governance. MSIs seek to involve civil society, but governments have more resources and tend to dominate these initiatives, making the phenomenon of “open-washing” – the tokenistic show by OGP partner governments of enlisting CSOs – a concern. While MSIs present an opportunity for civil society to influence policy, their participation depends on context, including geographic, demographic, and physical infrastructure factors. Civil society can be proactive and agitate for their inclusion in MSIs and should have solid planning, signal interest, form coalitions, and adopt a long-term perspective. Government should accept the principle of partnership and development partners can wield influence by providing CSOs with funding, aligning the support they provide with MSI activities, and helping to defend civic space. (by Terence Corrigan and Steven Gruzd)
This report reviews literature on three Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) – the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Open Governance Partnership (OGP) – to provide an overview of how each MSI function and evaluate the extent to which each has impacted policy and governance issues thus far. Two themes arise from this review: the importance of process and impact. MSIs establish partnerships between governments, civil society, and other stakeholders to promote transparency and accountability. By participating in these MSIs, governments often become more transparent and opened political space for civil society. MSIs have contributed to raising important issues and in some instances, the passing of legislation, but they have not always achieved tangible benefits. (by Yarik Turianskyi, Terence Corrigan, Matebe Chisiza and Alex Benkenstein)
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSIs) are voluntary partnerships between governments, civil society, and the private sector that have emerged over the last 15 years to address development challenges collaboratively, entrench democratic practices, and strengthen regulatory frameworks. MSIs operate on the premise that governance outcomes can be improved by increased transparency and enhanced stakeholder participation in policy reforms. The Accelerating Responsive Transparent Extractive Industry Resource Governance (ARTEIG) Project, implemented by Democracy International (DI) and the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) between October 1, 2016 and April 30, 2018, focused on three prominent MSIs: the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and the Open Government Partnership (OGP). These initiatives share principles of voluntarism, peer learning, and involvement of civil society. Openness and transparency are prioritized through the implementation of and adherence to common standards. The aim of this project was to learn lessons from the three MSIs, explore their evolution and dynamics, and recommend ways of closer collaboration on shared objectives. In doing so, it also sought to inform the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on how it could best engage with MSIs going forward. This paper summarises the lessons learnt during the project. (by Steven Gruzd, Yarik Turianskyi, Neuma Grobbelaar and Yemile Mizrahi)
This paper reflects on the African Union’s 2017 theme, ‘Harnessing the Demographic Dividend Through Investments in Youth.’ Although there has been a focus on youth-related issues in 2017 there is a need to critically examine the gains and challenges the AU faced in meeting this objective during 2017. The African Youth Charter plan of action and roadmap are some of the key guiding frameworks that have steered this theme. This paper argues that while youth empowerment frameworks and noticeable initiatives exist, there are shortfalls in the implementation and monitoring and evaluation of meaningful youth participation. There is also a need for the harmonisation of existing regional instruments into state policy to achieve significant change. (by Lennon Monyae and Luanda Mpungose)
The AU is undergoing a reform process, because of its inefficient bureaucracy, lack of implementation of decisions, funding, and overlapping institutional mandates. The ‘The Imperative to Strengthen our Union: Report on the Proposed Recommendations for the Institutional Reform of the African Union’, commonly known as the ‘Kagame Report’, was presented in 2017. The Kagame Report identified 19 recommendations (later expanded to 21) that covered 6 reform areas namely: focusing on fewer priority areas, a clear division of labour between AU structures, making the AU Commission more efficient and effective, strengthening the current sanctions regime, improving decision-making and the implementation of resolutions after AU Summits and equitable regional representation and gender parity in the recruitment process. This paper aims to provide an objective assessment of progress made by the Kagame Reforms, including implementation of the Kigali Financing Decision, ensuring the implementation of decisions as well as the changing mandate of two bodies: The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). (by Yarik Turianskyi and Steven Gruzd)
The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC) is the world’s premier international human rights forum. It was formed in 2006, replacing the UN Commission on Human Rights. The HRC has 47 seats, distributed on a proportional, regional basis. African states occupy 13 seats making it, along with the Asian Group, the largest of the UN’s five regional groupings on the 47-member HRC. A recent report, compiled in the Department of Political and International Studies at Rhodes University and published by SAIIA, analyses the commitment of 14 African countries to international human rights. The HRC adopts dozens of resolutions every year; in 2017 it adopted 109 resolutions, covering issues that range from economic rights to extrajudicial execution. This report focuses on two domains of the HRC’s work: country-specific situations and civil and political rights. (by Eduard Jordaan)
The African Peer Review Mechanism is an example of a multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI). Such frameworks became prominent in the early 21st century, bringing together governments, business and civil society to collectively solve governance challenges. While the APRM is a uniquely African MSI, SAIIA’s research has also looked at other, global initiatives, focusing on the Open Government Partnership and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. The purpose of this policy briefing is to provide practical policy recommendations on what the APRM can learn from its counterparts and, in turn, what it can teach them. It is important for MSIs to continually evolve and adopt best practices to maintain their edge in the constantly changing world of international development. (by Steven Gruzd and Yarik Turianskyi)
Less than a decade ago the Arab Spring was hailed as a game changer for global politics. Enhanced political debate via social media, a wider diversity of opinions and closer access to governments were meant to enhance social consensus and improve governance. Digital democracy was on the rise, it seemed. Fast forward a few years – in the wake of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump – and against a backdrop of increasing polarisation, Internet shutdowns and heightened censorship, ‘digital dictatorship’ has become the new buzzword. The full range of effects of this development has yet to be fully understood or digested in Africa, where the concept of digital dictatorship is still in its relative infancy. However, how these issues are traversed is set to have huge implications for African democracy and governance, consequently meriting further analysis and reflection. (by Ronak Gopaldas)