Quarterly Bulletin

 The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is a voluntary system where an African State can assess governance in the country and then allow Peers (other Heads of States) to review the assessment and also review the progress in what the country is doing/has done to deal with highlighted problems in governance. Zambia accepted to go through this process in January 2006. Since then, not much has happened although there are now signs that the process will get underway. Dominic Liche and Pete Henriot, S.J., highlight some important issues that need addressing if the process is to be successful.

What is the APRM?

The APRM process is a mechanism or a system that countries of the African Union voluntarily sign to in order to self access their governance. It is a peer review in that the peers (other Heads of States in Africa) have a chance to review the reports of the self-assessment and can review and monitor progress of actions to strengthen best practices in governance and progress in addressing the problems that will have been identified in the assessment.  The APRM assesses four holistic areas of governance, namely: Democracy and Political Governance, Economic Governance and Management, Corporate Governance, and Socio-economic Governance.

For this process to be successful and beneficial in improving governance in Zambia, citizens, churches, NGOs, business groups, trade unions, etc., will have a role to play in assessing national performance, in meeting key components of sustainable development. We believe that this is going to have major consequences in three areas.

NATIONAL GOVERNING COUNCIL

First, the manner that the National Governing Council (NGC) is chosen and conducts its activities is important for a successful process. The NGC is the commission of appointed members to oversee the whole process. In Zambia, the NGC has been appointed, containing 47 members and chaired by Mr. Akashambatwa Mbikusita Lewanika. Civil Society organisations have raised many concerns on the way members were selected (not transparent), the number of members in the NGC (too many and not representative of all key actors especially those from civil society and the private sector), the leadership of the NGC (given that Mr. Lewanika is actively a political member of the ruling party - MMD). It is good when the NGC includes a large proportion of citizens (e.g., non-governmental, Church representative). Examples of “best practices” of other countries that are involved in the APRM process (e.g., Ghana) demonstrate the importance of this NGC composition.

Such an arrangement is obviously very necessary in order to assure that an evaluation of governance is not simply a “public relations” exercise by the Government and Ruling Party.

COUNTRY SELF-ASSESSMENT

Second, the fact-finding stage of the APRM is a gathering of information through a “Country Self-Assessment” done by Government and stakeholders, responding to a detailed questionnaire touching on really key areas of life in Zambia. This fact-finding stage involves reviewing reports, studies and interviews. Thousands (millions?) of Zambians will be asked to evaluate the adherence to various standards and codes that Zambia has agreed to – e.g., in our Republican Constitution, in UN and AU documents, etc.

In Zambia, we feel the following questions can help in this stage of the APRM process:

1) Democracy and Good Political Governance:

How well does our justice system operate, do we have free and fair elections, is there quality public service available to all, how free is expression (e.g., in the public print and electronic media)?

2) Economic Government and Management:

Is macro-economic stability lasting and beneficial to all Zambians, who participates in budget preparation, how is debt contacted and managed, how fair and effective are the tax systems?

3) Corporate Governance:

Is the private sector properly regulated, how strong are the unions in promoting workers’ rights, is information readily available about investment arrangements with foreign investors, what environmental protection is guaranteed by businesses?

4) Socio-economic Governance:

What is the quality of education and health services, how much of the public has access to basic needs, are decent jobs being guaranteed through employment generation, what about gender issues, what and why are HIV and AIDS prevalence rates?

Right away you can see the importance of getting wide-scale involvement in discussions around these four areas. Remember, this critical analysis is not a partisan activity or a hidden plot by opponents of the current government. Rather, it is something specifically called for and enthusiastically endorsed by the President and the Minister of Justice!

CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

Third, you can see the consequences of this APRM process for the current constitutional review undertaken by the National Constitutional Conference (NCC). It is not yet clear now, that President Mwanawasa is dead, whether the NCC will continue the constitutional review. It is our hope, given the so many resources that have been dedicated to the review and the so many controversies surrounding it, that the process continue.

 After country-wide research and in-depth analysis, the Mung’omba Commission came up with a Draft Constitution emphasising so many of the points that will be covered in the APRM “Country Self-Assessment.” To mention just a few to show this connection: electoral reform and powers of the President, debt contraction and budget preparation, workers’ rights and environmental protection, access to health and education and gender issues.

It is obvious, therefore, how linked the APRM process is to the call for a new Bill of Rights in a new Constitution, a Bill of Rights that includes Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR). Members of the NCC certainly must pay attention to this! For it would be a waste of time and money -- indeed, a shameful avoidance of duty -- if the NCC attended to only a revision of the current Constitution and ignored the strong call by the Zambian people through the Mung’omba Commission for inclusion of the ESCR in the Bill of Rights.

Just think how embarrassing it would be if the commitment of the President and the Minister of Justice to take seriously the APRM process would be ignored by the NCC. For that could mean that the responses to the “Country Self-Assessment” that are submitted to “peer review” by heads of other African States might show a serious discrepancy between what is in the Constitution and what is occurring on the ground. Let’s not have that! Reviewing the current Constitution and coming up with a good Constitution is one way of ensuring that governance problems are dealt with, problems that we are sure will come up in the APRM assessment.

Given the many problems in governance and the good things that are happening in Zambia today, the APRM has great potential to be of benefit in raising the wellbeing of Zambians. It has the potential of empowering citizens to hold government and other stakeholders accountable when they do not fulfil their promises and when they do not do much to improve governance.

It is clear to us that key to a successful review will be involvement of citizens and honesty in taking problems in governance seriously. A window-dressing kind of review will just end up being a BIG research project, commissioned, but NEVER followed up!

Dominic Liche and Pete Henriot, S.J.
JCTR Staff
Lusaka

 So