| |
Back to Index
Evaluating
democratic progress in Africa
Ozias Tungwarara
Extracted from Democracy at Large: Vol. 3, No.1 - 2006
December 2006
One question increasingly
asked in Africa is whether democracy is working. Are Africans able
to hold their governments accountable for delivering the services
that are important to citizens? This question is asked against a
background of increasing poverty, growing income inequality and
the devastating impact of the HIV/ AIDS pandemic, all of which have
generally eroded the quality of people-s lives. This reality
makes clear the need to assess Africa-s progress towards consolidating
democracy and to evaluate the impact democracy has on ordinary people-s
lives.
In recent years, evaluating
the state and quality of democracy has been an area of growth. Such
evaluations have been carried out for a number of different purposes,
including measuring democratic progress (Freedom House-s survey),
examining correlations between democracy and economic development
(various political science indices), identifying how recipients
of development assistance are likely to manage resources (donor
assessments) and catalyzing national dialogue (International IDEA-s
State of Democracy). To achieve this last purpose, democracy assessments
provide citizens with critical information about what is working
and what isn-t in their country-s democratic transition.
This information allows civil society to engage in public debate
about what the objectives of democratization should be and what
the key obstacles are to their achievement. Such civil society monitoring
of state reform and advocacy for citizen priorities is critical
to the creation of accountable and effective government. In this
way, assessments of democracy in Africa can contribute to democracy-building
efforts on the ground.
In an effort to make
a similar contribution, the Africa Governments Monitoring and Advocacy
Project (AfriMAP) was established in 2004 to monitor the compliance
of member states of the African Union (AU) with the standards it
adopted in relation to good governance, democracy, human rights
and the rule of law. (AfriMAP is an initiative of the Open Society
Institute-s network of foundations). Given the status of the
third wave of democracy in Africa and the commitments the AU has
made to democracy, the time is right for African civil society to
measure their countries- progress towards democratization.
After considering these topics, this article will discuss AfriMAP-s
goals and what it is learning from assessments.
The
Right Time for Re-evaluation
In the early nineties, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of the Soviet Union brought a certain euphoria to democracy activists
around the world. The dramatic transitions that took place in the
early to mid-nineties from autocratic (and in some cases openly
racist) regimes to open and more plural societies appeared to herald
the advent of an irreversible democratic dispensation. For instance,
in southern Africa and the collapse of Zambia-s and Malawi-s
one-party state regimes gave credence to the notion that democracy
was increasingly the only game in town. Constitutional reforms that
established democratic institutions and sought to entrench the protection
of fundamental rights placed most countries on a trajectory towards
democratic consolidation.
But - some 15 years
on - these newfound political freedoms and civil liberties
do not appear to have translated into concrete improvements in citizens-
quality of life. Recent experience has shown that democratic transition
is not just a linear path from tyranny to open and pluralistic forms
of governance. Today-s reality is that in some countries democratic
transition has been blocked, and in others it has produced democratically
flawed outcomes. Now is the time for Africans to use democratic
assessments to identify the obstacles preventing further democratization
in their countries.
However, despite agreement
that democratic assessments are useful they carry their own challenges.
Democratic development is (and will continue to be) a messy and
uncertain process; thus the development and implementation of appropriate
assessment tools is more challenging than in other development sectors.
In addition, democratization is essentially a local process. Despite
the growing acceptance of notions such as participation, representation,
political contestation and accountability as key components of democracy,
the form and shape that democratic systems of governance take will
differ from country to country. Yet the discourse about assessing
democracy has tended to be largely dominated by the search for universally
acceptable and measurable indicators. The search for homegrown models
of democratic governance makes the task of developing common frameworks
for assessing democracy that much more difficult. In Africa, though,
the AU has begun the process of identifying common standards that
are appropriate for the African context.
African
Commitments to Democratization
In recognition of the role that democratic governance plays in advancing
economic development, the African Union (which replaced the Organization
of African Unity in 2002) has committed to upholding standards related
to good governance, democracy, human rights and the rule of law
(expanding on commitments already contained in the African Charter
on Human and Peoples- Rights and other African and international
human rights instruments). The AU also pledged to uphold the standards
outlined in the New Partnership for Africa-s Development (NEPAD),
which included the use of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).
The APRM is a tool African countries can use to monitor their own
adherence to the standards for democracy and good governance set
by NEPAD.
The commitments AU member
governments made to improve democratic governance through adoption
of NEPAD Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate
Governance and the implementation of the APRM are laudable. It is
also a good sign that—despite heads of state declining to
adopt a draft charter on democracy and good governance during the
AU-s seventh summit in Banjul (July 2006)—the AU appears
to be committed to giving legal force to the declaration through
adoption of a charter. The draft charter will be resubmitted during
the heads of state summit in January 2007. However, the AU faces
serious challenges in making sure that member states comply with
its commitments relating to democracy, human rights and rule of
law. For example, during the Banjul summit, the AU failed for the
second time to consider a report of African Commission on Human
and Peoples- Rights that was critical of the Zimbabwean government-s
human rights record. Such an action creates the impression that
the AU is hesitant to deal with member states that are failing to
meet their democratic commitments.
Increasingly,
it is being acknowledged that Africans should find solutions to
African problems. The AU-s adoption of NEPAD standards and
the APRM offer two tools Africans can use in doing so. However,
it appears that actors from the national level (be they legislators
or civil society members) have only limited interaction with AU
standard-setting processes, which occur at the transnational (or
continental) level. This fact makes the domestication of continental
standards a somewhat ad hoc process. It is also clear that
AU member states are not subject to domestic pressure to meet the
democratic commitments their governments agreed to as members of
the AU.
Democracy-building efforts
in African countries could be made more effective if sub-regional
and continental standards were made an integral part of those efforts,
including democracy assessments. Using such African-developed standards
as a basis for assessing democratic progress in a country is something
few assessments frameworks do. In fact, most donors and democracy
promotion institutions are quite skeptical of processes such as
NEPAD and APRM. While it should be acknowledged that the APRM process
faces a host of teething problems that include methodology and process
issues, it should also be accepted that it represents a serious
effort by Africans to assess and monitor democracy.
AfriMAP-s
Goals and Experience
As its full name suggests, the Africa governance Monitoring and
Advocacy Project is primarily concerned with monitoring and advocacy.
With respect to the first goal, AfriMAP is an effort to give Africans
the tools to monitor their own countries- democratic progress
according to the standards set fourth by the AU, which themselves
aim to further political, economic and social development. AfriMAP
compliments and supports the APRM and other initiatives undertaken
at the government level to ensure respect for democratic commitments
in practice. It aims to establish a systematic and standardized
reporting framework that links good governance and respect for human
rights to progress in development. Currently, the project focuses
on three areas: justice and rule of law, political participation
and effective public service delivery. Through the use of in-depth
questionnaires on selected themes, AfriMAP aims to go beyond simply
noting compliance with minimum standards of international human
rights law to develop a deeper understanding of why shortfalls occur
and to suggest remedies. Research is carried out at the country
level, which allows for cross-country comparison and learning. AfriMAP
also emphasizes the principle of mutual accountability for developed
and developing countries in considering the effectiveness of aid.
AfriMAP reports will
be used by civil society organizations at both the national and
regional levels to advocate for policy reforms in specific sectors.
Already, there are initiatives underway to support civil society
advocacy aimed at the AU on a number of issues ranging from access
to information, meeting treaty reporting obligations, traditional
authorities and democracy, and weak institutions of governance (among
others). AfriMAP reports will also complement the APRM. The ultimate
goal of the AfriMAP process is to establish a strong network of
African civil society assessors that collaborate across borders
and contribute to African definitions of democracy.
In the end, democratic
assessments should be conducted by citizens of the country being
assessed and not by outsiders sitting in judgment upon it. AfriMAP
is helping to develop local capacity for assessment, to make critical
information available to civil society and to encourage dialogue
about democratic governance among members of government, civil society
and business. But in each of these areas, it has faced challenges
to be overcome along the way.
First, we are learning
that there is serious need for local assessment capacity if democratic
assessments are to be a useful part of democracy building at the
national level. A small number of people, usually academics, have
the necessary skills and are used by donor organizations to carry
out research. However, donors and other democracy promotion institutions
have made little or no investment in developing local organizations-
capacity to carry out democracy assessments on a regular basis.
AfriMAP has invested in a process that it hopes will lead to greater
local ownership of the assessment process. African experts have
developed a series of research questionnaires and have identified
areas of focus for the assessments. These assessments have been
carried out by local researchers working under the auspices of a
local institution that oversees the research, facilitates a consultative
process and becomes the institutional home for both the process
and end products. This approach creates a good opportunity for local
institutions and practitioners to develop and enhance their assessment
capacities. AfriMAP has also provided practitioners the opportunity
to learn and share experiences with their counterparts from other
countries. At the AU summit in July, AfriMAP brought together researchers
from Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa who shared their
experiences about the challenges they were facing while monitoring
their governments- compliance with AU commitments.
Second, at a practical
level, assessing democracy in Africa is hindered by difficulties
in accessing information. Past authoritarian regimes have left a
legacy of secrecy and lack of transparency that make it difficult
to gather information that, under normal circumstances, should be
in the public domain. AfriMAP researchers find that they often have
to use personal contacts with government officials, or go through
lengthy bureaucratic procedures, to obtain relevant information.
However, when they can gain access, researchers often find that
most democracy and governance institutions lack the capacity to
properly document and store information, so that what they are looking
for is generally not available. In such an environment, it is difficult
to identify with accuracy the democracy deficits that need to be
addressed. This fact needs to be acknowledged in the development
of assessment frameworks. Donors supporting democracy building in
Africa should be encouraged to fund initiatives that aim to improve
the collection of data on government function and access to this
information.
Third, in most African
countries, there is not enough dialogue between the different national
actors (government, civil society and business), even though such
discussion is a critical part of democracy building. For example,
there is often little or no dialogue between government and civil
society because civil society lacks the capacity to carry out assessments
on the basis of which they can then engage government. AfriMAP seeks
to change these circumstances by facilitating a consultative process
involving key stakeholders debating and discussing the findings
at different stages of the assessment. This is done through the
use of roundtables.
For instance, in Malawi
during the assessment of the rule of law sector, the faculty of
law at Chancellor College convened two roundtables for debate on
the report-s findings that brought together judges from the
high and supreme courts, members of the attorney general-s
office, the public prosecutor, prison officials, the police, the
law society, academics, civil society organizations, donors and
the law commission (among others). The report was published and
launched with the full participation of key stakeholders, including
the minister of justice and constitutional affairs. The process
has precipitated dialogue among key actors, which the media has
brought to the broader public. Now, the challenge is to take the
debate forward in a structured manner that influences important
processes, such as the constitutional review and the APRM that are
already underway in Malawi. Similar processes are being replicated
with slight variations in Mozambique, South Africa, Ghana and Senegal.
Though these developments are quite positive, their downside is
that the process can become quite protracted and may not be attractive
to those who need to make quick decisions about programming development
assistance or making investments.
In conclusion, it is
clear that different types of democracy assessments (both qualitative
and quantitative) have the potential to contribute to different
aspects of democracy building. Clearly, external actors, such as
donors and foreign investors, need to understand the lay of the
land in African countries. And researchers and donors need to collect
data for comparative analysis and objective measures. But these
factors alone should not determine the shape of democracy assessment
frameworks. Given the challenges of advancing democracy in Africa,
an assessment that identifies the causes of democratic deficits
may be a more useful approach. In addition, democracy assessments
that enjoy more local ownership could be more useful to democratization.
They will allow the results to capture citizens- imaginations
and engage their expectations about how they ought to be governed.
*Ozias Tungwarara
is the deputy director of AfriMAP.
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
