Peer Review in African Government

The African Union's (AU)  predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), established a process called the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as part of the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). The AU has moved forward with APRM, which, whatever its shortcomings, holds great promise to help African nations spur one another toward good governance, best practices, and accountability. So far 26 African countries have signed on to the process, with others soon to follow. In keeping with the spirit of the African Renaissance that Thabo Mbeki has long championed, the APRM theoretically will enable Africans to develop African solutions for African problems, further moving the continent away from both the burdens of the colonial past and the dependence of the neocolonial present.

South Africa is now in the final stages of dealing with its review, which consisted of a combination of criticism, suggestions, concerns, and praise. The South African response has run the gamut from incensed to dilatory to resigned to determined. Initially, the word was that the South Africans were outraged and that Pretoria was set to reject the entire report summarily. But now that South Africa is participating in the African Union summit in Accra, Mbeki's administration seems more acquiescent and even accepting of the APRM. Mbeki savvily sidestepped most of the most ardent (some Africans might say “strident”) criticisms of what he called  “a positive report that acknowledges the huge strides made by South Africa in transforming the country into a vibrant democracy with one of the most progressive constitutions in the world”.

I think I understand both the harsh initial response and the more conciliatory recent indications from Mbeki's government. In the first place it must have been difficult for South Africa to swallow criticisms — some rather harsh — from a body that consists of many nations that have not achieved South Africa's successes, from countries that, right or wrong, South Africa sees as being its lessers. South Africa sees itself as a continental leader and regional power. Hearing criticisms from countries that enjoy the fruits of operating from within South Africa's penumbra surely must have galled Pretoria, which likely expected a rubber stamp and pats on the back from the continent's leaders. It is perhaps reassuring that such obeisance did not emerge from the APRM.

But South Africa's change of tone also stands to reason. After all, South Africa fancies itself as the driving force behind the continent's hoped-for future direction. Any African Renaissance that occurs will have South Africa's imprimatur and South Africa's fingerprints all over it. For South Africa to scuttle one of the chief mechanisms by which the continent can achieve its goals would be churlish, impetuous, and self destructive.

But there is another possible explanation for South Africa's newfound change of heart: Initially the government was stung, in a sense, by the criticisms, which surely seemed harsh and highly critical. But the passage of time has allowed South Africa to take a step back, to find the positive in the report, to look at the negatives as constructive criticism, and as importantly, to look at that criticism as being largely accurate. The truth sometimes hurts, it is said. But that pain makes it no less true.