As the time for second reviews to take place in countries approaches, there are concerns about transparency of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).
It’s not surprising that mixed messages are being received from and about the APRM. In fact, it would be unusual if anything as ambitious and wide-ranging as the APRM were to be implemented without obstacles and disappointments. Problems are therefore bound to occur as governments take on the challenge of establishing a new dialogue with civil society in order to reach consensus around priority governance areas and agree on improvements to be made. The important thing is to be open and honest about the difficulties.
The APRM founders established solid foundations upon which the APRM has been patiently built over the first five years of its existence. The core APRM documents are very clear about what is expected of each country participating in this voluntary process. In the majority of cases, honest attempts have been made to try and create the necessary dialogue as a means to move the self-assessment process forward. But five-years on, as we approach the time for second reviews to take place in countries such as Ghana and Kenya, there are worrying examples of national situations where officially reported dialogue in the APRM process is a misnomer. How valid are such processes, then?
Fortunately, there are still many examples of countries where the government accepts the challenge of talking with its people, of allowing unfettered consultations and debate about governance issues, and of laying bare its problems before African experts delegated by the APRM to offer advice. But given that the way forward is clear, given that the cup is more than half full, why is it that the rumour machine has begun grinding out stories about this or that leader trying to wrest control of the APRM, and about this or that APRM Eminent Person succumbing to pressure and leaving their principles or obligations behind?
The APRM has much to be proud of and does not need to hide its differences and difficulties. The slow pace of renewal of the membership of the Panel of Eminent Persons and of the staff at the APRM Secretariat, and the lack of transparency of both processes, does a disservice to the APRM. Moreover, the fact that the APRM Secretariat chooses not to have an efficient and open communications strategy only compounds the problem, allowing the critics and rumour-mongers a field day. This needs to be turned around.
