A critical analysis of the African Peer Review Mechanism as a standard for 'good governance'

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on an analysis of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as a standard for ‘good governance’. The APRM is a democratic initiative on behalf of African leaders to strengthen governance and democratic processes on the continent, in order to build a successful foundation for development. This is intended to be achieved through a new concept in African politics – ‘peer review’. Thus, the APRM is an innovative solution to the governance problems of the African states. However, the APRM is not without its issues. The process is voluntary and its recommendations are not enforced. Although the APRM is intended as an overall country review, according to its rules national governments are in the driving seat, which raises concerns with regard to possible manipulations. The extensive standards utilised by the APRM and analysed in this dissertation are of little substance practically, as they mostly fail to provide definitions of key concepts, measuring tools, and normative recommendations. As case studies, this dissertation examines four problems of four African states: Rwanda and sovereignty; Kenya and democracy; South Africa and corruption; and Ghana and neopatrimonialism. These case studies show that although in many instances the APRM is on the right track, in its current format it is too weak to significantly impact on African politics. The APRM is an effort to strengthen ‘good governance’ in Africa, but it often lacks the collective will of its members to achieve its objectives. Copyright