Maravi

APRM and good governance

APRM and good governance
By Editor
Tuesday July 10, 2007 [04:00]

IT is good that the government has launched a national self-assessment process through the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) under the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) framework. For democracy to work effectively, it is necessary that once in a while those who govern are assessed by the governed. We are saying this because the legitimacy of any government is to a larger extent determined on its acceptability or approval of the governed.

The strength of a government should not be determined by the capacity of a particular government to manipulate the people or to take the governed for granted. Rather, governments should consider processes that allow their criticism as key factors to enhancing ideals of democracy and good governance.

And considering that Zambia acceded to the African Peer Review Mechanism on 22 January 2006, more than a year now, we think that the process of the government opening itself to constructive and objective criticism is longer overdue. Although we are alive to the fact that the APRM process is not perfect, we feel that it is one which, if well implemented, can add up to our democratic credentials as a country.

Our understanding is that the APRM is essentially an African self-monitoring system which entails a country voluntarily submitting to make its own citizens undertake an internal audit or national self assessment of its political, economic, corporate and socio-economic governance systems after which an external audit or verification of the self-assessment report is made by an independent panel from the African Union.

Further, the mandate of the African Peer Review Mechanism is to ensure that the policies and practices of participating states conform to the agreed political, economic and corporate governance values, codes and standards contained in the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance.

In short, the APRM mechanism is the mutually agreed instrument for self-monitoring by the participating member governments. Among others, the principal purpose of the APRM is to foster the adoption of policies, standards and practices that lead to political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated sub-regional and continental economic integration through sharing of experiences and reinforcement of successful and best practice, including identifying deficiencies and assessing the needs for capacity building.

We can clearly see from this that although the APRM will still have problems here and there in terms of successful implementation, it still offers many advantages, including in terms of fostering national dialogue, promoting transparency and enabling countries to identify capacity gaps, weaknesses, strengths and deficiencies for improvement to raise their standard of living.

In fact, we can look at the APRM process as a new way of promoting democratic responsibility not only in Zambia but on the African continent as a whole. Weighed against such arguments as the one on the fact that the APRM is a voluntary, non-binding process and could result in it being seen as toothless process, we think that with more work put in, this process could offer more positive and beneficial results in terms of governance within our countries on the continent.

Let us not forget that democracy and good governance are ideals which are still not yet well-rooted in Africa and all efforts aimed at strengthening them should be encouraged. By this, we are not saying that other regions of the world have better records of democracy or good governance. No. Even in some of the so-called advanced democracies, we still witness a lot of poor governance in many areas.

However, what is important is for us as African countries to come to a realisation that if we opt to embrace democracy and the concept of good governance, we should do so wholeheartedly or with both hands. Democracy and good governance should not just be useful terms or concepts when it comes to political sloganeering. On the contrary, these are terms or concepts that should be translated into action and those committed to such ideals should show that by allowing criticism upon themselves.

And when we talk about good governance, we are talking about the manner in which those who are charged with responsibility discharge their duties. Good governance is about discharging one's responsibilities in an effective, transparent and accountable manner. Good governance entails the existence of efficient and accountable institutions - political, judicial, administrative, economic, corporate - and entrenched rules that promote development, protect human rights, respect the rule of law, and ensure that people are free to participate in, and be heard on, decisions that affect their lives.

It is such importance which should be attached to good governance which makes us feel that the APRM process is a necessary one if as a country we have to start moving forward. And we hope those in government will not take this process as an academic exercise to posture for a good name in the eyes of the international community. The government should commit itself to criticism from the people not just because that is what will please its donors, but because that is the right way to do things.

We do not want to start seeing contradictions in terms of the promises and assurances from the government and what is actually happening on the ground. We expect that through the APRM process which our government has committed itself to, the people of this country will be offered an opportunity to give their views or assessments in terms of the governance style of those presently in government.

Labels: APRM, EDITORIAL, NEPAD, TIZ

posted by MrK @ 4:04 AM