Preliminary Thoughts on A Case for the Review of the APRM Questionnaire

1. Preliminary Thoughts on A Case for the Review of the APRM Questionnaire

2. Purpose • We will assume that all participants know and understand the questionnaire • The purpose of the presentation is to provide some strategic and focused insights on the APRM Questionnaire in it’s current form.

3. A Question of Answers • To evaluate the Questionnaire, we should actually be looking at the answers to the questionnaire, rather than the Questionnaire itself. The answers are generally speaking the various Country Reports since the establishment of the APRM. One would like to believe that many of us recognise that Country Review Reports have proven quite insightful about the respective countries. • However, as many participants have pointed out or highlighted, the major criticism of the Country Review Reports, is that they are so long and deal with so many issues, that quite often some very pertinent matters can get lost. Therefore the Action Plan and the reporting on the Action Plan, also becomes quite a voluminous matter. But Country Reports by their very nature are voluminous, because every country is vast and tackles a number of issues, trying to reduce the issues will not satisfy the nature of a country report. • The solution probably lies, in increasing the analytical capability of the APRM Secretariat to analyse the Country Reports, synthesize the various reports into a single picture of the continent, and report that to the Heads of State, who can discuss it amongst themselves, as well as raise it within the African Union, with the rest of the Heads of State.

4. A Possible Gap • The APRM relies on a Self-Assessment. We must ask then what is ‘Self’? If we are just reviewing government, then the ‘self’ will be limited to government and it’s institutions. However the review is of the country not just government. Therefore the ‘self’ must be broadened to include more than just the government. It is correct that the Governing Council is not just composed of government but also the various sectors of the country. And the multi-stakeholder Governing Council oversees the process, so that it is not government-centred. • However, in the review, the ability to speak and engage with ordinary citizens becomes important and that should not be limited to the Governing Council. • Furthermore, reviewing the capacity of civil society organisations, as well as their links to the grassroots of a society, is also important, when reviewing a country. Currently, the process wants more people involvement but does not necessarily attract it. Outreach must include community organisations, particularly those working with communities on the ground.

5. Conclusion • Lets fundamentally build the APRM Secretariat to increase their capacity to analyse and synthesize the Country Review Reports. • Increase the involvement of ordinary citizens and community based organisationsin the reviews.

6. Thank you