 |
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
|
|
Your email address:
|
|
|
SAIIA Occasional Papers Series, No. 2 & 3: Civil society participation in APRM in Uganda & South Africa
01 June 2008
South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA)
Perspectives on Governance: Founded to promote public debate and research on crucial issues of public policy, the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) is pleased to send you the next in a series of occasional papers that we hope will contribute to a more robust conversation about the nature of Africa’s governance challenges.
As the 28 participating presidents and prime ministers of the Forum of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) gather to consider the Country Review Reports of Burkina Faso, Nigeria and Uganda in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on 29 June 2008, we present two papers drawing important lessons about civil society participation in the APRM process. The APRM is an opportunity for civil society organisations (CSOs) to identify neglected problems in their countries, make convincing cases and to suggest workable solutions. However, CSOs have realised that the peer review process is complex, time-consuming and exacting. These papers outline how some groups have been successful in influencing the form and content of the APRM at national level, and how they coped with the many challenges they faced – including lack of information, the pace and duration of the process, and funding. They demonstrate that obstacles can be overcome with preparation, focus and stamina, and, most importantly, an articulate, evidence-based written submission that gets into the right hands. Both offer advice to others who may tread the APRM path, or seek to influence other policy-making processes.
Occasional Papers Series, Number 2: Civil society participation in Uganda's APRM process
By Juliet Nakato Odoi
In Uganda, umbrella organisations were appointed to represent civil society on the APRM National Commission. But some did not have the reach that had been assumed, and others were headed by busy people with other commitments.
Two NGOs not represented were Minority Rights Group International (MRG) and Care International in Uganda, but both decided to participate in the APRM because it afforded an opportunity to raise issues that concerned their groups and to propose solutions. Crucially, President Yoweri Museveni had said the APRM would become part of government processes such as the Poverty Eradication Action Plan. MRG and Care wanted their voices heard. They submitted a position paper to an umbrella body, the NGO Forum, which had been appointed to the commission. When their concerns were insufficiently addressed in the NGO Forum’s report, they brought other NGOs on board by holding a validation meeting and circulating their draft position paper, then including inputs from their new partners. The expanded report was submitted to the APRM Secretariat in Uganda and APRM headquarters in South Africa. They also participated in meetings held by the visiting Country Review Mission and submitted a brief report directly to the Mission.
The author, Juliet Nakato Odoi, who has worked for both organisations, notes that participation in the APRM is time-consuming and can be burdensome but by forming partnerships and coalitions, resources can be pooled. She recommends that civil society organisations prepare in advance for participation in the APRM in their work plans and budgets.
Occasional Papers Series, Number 3: Assessing South Africa's APRM: An NGO perspective
By Nick Hutchings, Mukelani Dimba and Alison Tilley
When the time came for South Africa to do its APRM self-assessment, a small organisation became determined that its voice would be heard at the highest level. The Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) was aware that the creators of the APRM wanted the assessment to involve participation by all elements of society. And it had a very strong idea indeed of what its role should be.
ODAC was passionate about two issues in particular, both offering safeguards against corruption in high places. The first was that ordinary people should be able to obtain, more easily and more quickly, information from government and corporations to which they were entitled. The second was that whistleblowers – those exposing corruption within institutions – should be given more legal protection.
According to the authors, the obstacles were formidable. Government seemed bent on controlling the process. ODAC was nearly excluded at the outset. Along the way, its submissions and recommendations fell by the wayside. Final recommendations were amended without consultation. The government refused to let the public see the changes
But, for ODAC, persistence paid. Its voice was heard in the final, binding document – the Programme of Action.
This paper tells how it happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| INFORM US |
| Tell us about events relating to social accountability in the region |
|
|
|
|
Newsfeeds
