AHSI 1

The initial African Human Security Initiative Project (AHSI1) was one-year project for a core network of seven established African Non-Governmental Organisations to embark upon a process of benchmarking the performance of key African governments in respect of human security issues, measured against the commitments taken at the level at OAU/AU heads of state meetings.

The links in the box on the right provide information on the AHSI1 project.

 

Background

The transformation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the African Union and the adoption of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) have raised expectations of renewed commitment by African Heads of State to better governance and enhanced human security for the continent. Most of these commitments, to human rights, democracy, peace and security, have been chronicled before in the protocols, declarations and decisions of the OAU from 1963-2002. What has been lacking is not the paper commitments by African leaders to these principles, but their actual implementation.

The most significant difference between the OAU commitments and those of the AU and NEPAD, is that the new initiatives make provision for monitoring mechanisms and review of implementation of decisions. There is also specific provision for greater popular participation and recognition of the need for civil society engagement in the policy-making and implementation of AU programmes, including NEPAD.

In reality, however, the relationship between African civil society organisations and the state-driven AU and NEPAD remains distant. On the one hand, certain civil society actors voice a blanket criticism that these are opaque and top-down initiatives lacking popular mandate. On the other hand, governments are understandably frustrated by the weakness of African civil society and by their often superficial levels of analysis. Civil society organisations need to meet their governments half way, accepting the offer of greater engagement in public policy-making and pushing the boundaries of this opportunity.

The concept of peer review has recently elicited considerable interest, most notably as part of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Countries that accede to NEPAD (15 have already done so) will voluntarily commit to specific African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) benchmarks and standards contained in a memorandum of understanding. Events prior to and after the 5th meeting of the NEPAD Heads of State Implementation Committee in Abuja on 3rd November 2002 (HSIC5), indicated that the technical aspects of political and governance review would be conducted by the African Union itself. Subsequently the 6th HSIC meeting in Abuja in March 2003 (HSIC6) confirmed that AU institutions such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Pan-African Parliament and the Economic Social and Cultural Council would be tasked with this vital component of peer review.

The problem is that of the AU structures that are to engage in political and human rights peer review, only the Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights based in The Gambia and the AU Commission based in Addis Ababa presently exist. The others, including the Pan-African Parliament and the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC), still have to be established. Each is briefly discussed below.

Once fully operational the Commission of the Union will also have a Commissioner responsible for Political Affairs (to include in his/her portfolio issues relating to human rights, democracy, good governance, elections, civil society, humanitarian affairs, refugees and internally displaced persons) who is also expected to play a monitoring role. Inevitably the role and structure of the Commission still have to be defined and harmonized as part of the broader process of the establishment of the African Union.

Once adequately resourced, the Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights based in The Gambia does have the potential to play an important role in political and human rights review of African countries. This will, however require substantial additional resources, a different process for the appointment of Commissioners and possibly an amendment to the Charter of the Commission since its present role reflects a primary advocacy and conflict resolution function and not that of monitoring. Thus far the reports produced by the Commission have received only cursory discussion (if any) during the annual meetings of African Heads of State.

By end November 2002 the Protocol establishing the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) had received 24 signatories but only 9 ratifications, still far short of the 27 ratifications required for the Protocol to come into effect. Once established the PAP will be composed of five delegates from each Member State and have consultative and advisory powers only, although the intention is that it develop into an institution with full legislative powers, whose members are elected by universal adult suffrage. The motivation for the role of the PAP in peer review is found in its objectives (Article 3) that include the promotion of the principles of human rights and democracy in Africa and encouragement of good governance, transparency and accountability in Member States. Included as part of its Functions and Powers the Protocol provides that the Parliament may:

“ Examine, discuss or express an opinion on any matter, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Assembly or other policy organs and make any recommendations it may deem fit relating to, inter alia, matters pertaining to respect of human rights, the consolidation of democratic institutions and the culture of democracy, as well as the promotion of good governance and the rule of law.”

Should sufficient countries ratify the Protocol in the next few months, the modalities and logistics required by the PAP would indicate that several years would be required before the Parliament is operative as part of a peer review process.

Turning now to ECOSOCC.

In accordance with Article 22 of the Constitutive Act:

“ 1. The Economic, Social and Cultural Council shall be an advisory organ composed of different social and professional groups of the Member States of the Union.

2. The functions, powers, composition and organization of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council shall be determined by the Assembly.”

At present ECOSOCC Statutes are being circulated for civil society input and consultation. Approval by AU Heads of State is only expected in mid-2004.

This overview would suggest that it would be several years before those AU institutions tasked with political review, including various aspects that related to commitments to democracy, human rights, peace and security are established and able to competently engage with a process of peer learning. The debate on peer review has, however, opened up considerable space for the engagement on this issue by African civil society organizations.

At the 6th meeting in Abuja, the Heads of State Implementation Committee acknowleged in the document on APRM Organisation and Processes, that to supplement the weak AU institutions: “It is anticipated that the APRM will have to work with a wider range of Partner Institutions including… African research and policy institutions engaged in policy advisory services” .

 

Purpose

Rather than wait for the necessarily lengthy process to capacitate and/or establish those AU institutions responsible for review of political and human rights issues, relying on governments to monitor or learn from one another, this project proposes that African civil society begin building a monitoring network to engage in an own process of holding African governments accountable to the degree to which leaders honour their commitments to selected political governance and human rights standards.

This project is for a core network of 7 established African NGOs to embark upon a process of benchmarking the performance of key African governments in respect of human security issues, measured against the commitments taken at the level at OAU/AU heads of state meetings.