Texts and Reports - Good Governance in Africa - Summary of Discussions

Summary of Discussions

Good Governance in Africa – a Parliamentarians' Forum on Realistic Policies in North and South

[Deutsch]

Ulf Terlinden
Research Fellow
Department for Political and Cultural Change
Center for Development Research (ZEF)
University of Bonn, Germany

The "New Partnership for Africa's Development" (NePAD) and its Peer Review Mechanism are cornerstones to the realisation of good governance and sustainable human development - as participants unanimously agreed at the Parliamentarians' Forum on "Good Governance in Africa", convened by the Development Policy Forum/ InWEnt in cooperation with the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and AWEPA - European Parliamentarians for Africa on October 21 and 22, 2004 in Berlin, Germany. Opportunities for an intensified parliamentary involvement in these crucial development initiatives were at the centre of the Policy Dialogue among 40 national and regional parliamentarians from across Africa, members of the German Bundestag, other European parliaments, and representatives of international organizations, the NePAD-Secretariat as well as selected development organizations. The aim of the meeting was not only to encourage debate on good governance, but also to underline the Federal Government's readiness to promote the NePAD Initiative and to support parliamentary oversight, one of NePAD's primary policy goals detailed in Chapter 2 of the G8 Africa Action Plan.

Parliaments' Formative Inputs in Reform Processes

The keynote speakers of the opening session positioned NePAD, the "African Peer Review Mechanism" (APRM) and the good governance roles of parliaments in the context of democratisation processes and international cooperation. There was general agreement that no "standard model of democracy" exists, and that every country must find its own path to it. Europeans, given their own, diverse historical experience, should refrain from promoting blue prints. In this context, Norbert Lammert, Vice President of the German Bundestag, described the process of democratisation as a struggle in which parliaments essentially contest for power with the executive. He highlighted the importance of vivid cultures of political parties to the effective functioning of parliaments.

The German Chancellor's Personal G8 Representative for Africa and Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Uschi Eid, pointed out the support that the G8 in their Africa Action Plan have accorded to NePAD, which she viewed as the decisive reform strategy developed by African leaders. She stressed that parliaments had received particular support in the Plan's chapter on strengthening democracy and good governance, and that the conference reflected this commitment. Furthermore, the minister called for greater international attention to the role of parliaments, noting that the UN Secretary-General's recent report on NePAD made no reference to the legislative assemblies.

Uschi Eid quoted observers of the NePAD process who had expressed discontent with the lack of programme implementation as well as with the way African leaders had handled the Zimbabwe crisis, which was seen as undermining NePAD's principles. Countering the critics, she stressed that NePAD needed to be regarded as a long-term programme which was merely beginning. Difficult reform processes needed longer-term perspectives, as popular resistance against economic reforms in Germany and throughout Europe illustrated. Furthermore, she underlined recent successes such as the involvement of the African Union Peace and Security Council in Burundi and Darfur. Germany has pledged to support the African Peer Review, to which 23 of the NePAD member states have subscribed and which is now in progress in a first set of four countries.

Given that Germany's parliamentary democracy is relatively young, the minister recalled the history of "imposed democratization" which had taken place after the end of the Nazi regime. She reminded the audience that while the process could build on earlier roots of democracy, the framework had had to come from the outside, and that her generation appreciated this momentum. In her conclusions, Eid stimulated the following debates by observing that external imposition can enhance democratisation, and that the standards which NePAD and the APRM apply from the outside could be viewed in this spirit.

The President of the Pan-African-Parliament (PAP), Gertrude Ibengwe Mongella, picked up on this issue by pointing to Africa's own agenda. NePAD, the African Union, and the PAP reflected the sense of unity, good governance and development that Pan-Africanists had already proclaimed in the early 1960s. Rather than representing an entirely new or foreign concept, NePAD and the APRM needed to be seen as a re-emergence of these values, stimulated by globalisation and the fact that African states had meanwhile asserted the sovereignty that had stood in the way of unity immediately after the decolonization period. The two initiatives now represented adequate frameworks to promote good governance and to achieve development in partnership with the North.

President Mongella highlighted that all African countries had developed - albeit diverse - parliaments after independence. She cited regional parliamentary assemblies and the recent creation of the PAP as further proof of the progress that had been achieved, although these structures remained restricted to consultative powers. While the latter role is essential to shape the African Agenda, particularly with regard to peace and security as well as economic policies, Mongella pledged to also accord trans-national parliaments with legislative and investigative powers to permit for effective oversight. She expressed the dire need for resources, skilled technical staff and capacity building. Civil society, the media and the general public should be mobilized to support the parliaments. The President further demanded clarification of the relationship and responsibilities between national parliaments and the PAP, as well as between the PAP and regional assemblies.

Gertrude Mongella noted the challenge to make the pan-African parliamentarians aware of NePAD and to get them more involved. During its session in September 2004, the PAP had passed a resolution on the Peer Review which questioned its voluntary nature and called for its acceleration and implementation. In the view of the PAP, NePAD and the APRM should be taken seriously, and Africa must not be allowed to undergo any further experiments. On the same token, she demanded that the British government's Commission for Africa be brought into the existing institutional framework of the African Union and NePAD.

Accountability and Transparency

The debate set out around these two cornerstones both of good governance and parliamentarism in general, and the NePAD programme and the APR Mechanism in particular. UNDP Assistant Administrator Abdoulie Janneh, Director of the Regional Bureau for Africa, rated governance as "perhaps the most important single factor in overcoming poverty" and provided his organization's definitions of accountability and transparency, stating that no public institution other than parliament is better placed to demand and implement these essentials of democracy. He pledged to accord the assemblies with this responsibility and to empower them accordingly, like UNDP does in many of its programme countries. In Janneh's view, parliaments are to safeguard good governance by passing the necessary legislation, providing the budget framework, defining policy and monitoring government action.

Institutional Requirements and Oversight of Public Spending

Partly drawing from practical insights that participants had gained during a specialist information programme on the remit of the German Federal Audit Office (Bundesrechnungshof) and the Parliamentary Audit Committee (Rechnungsprüfungsausschuss) on the previous day (click here) parliamentary controls on public spending received particular attention in the course of the discussion. Highlighting the importance of this task, Norbert Mao, Member of the Public Accounts Committee of the Ugandan Parliament, quoted Ronald Reagan, who once compared government with the alimentary canal of a baby: It has a huge consumption of resources and yet no sense of responsibility. Abdoulie Janneh agreed and demanded that parliaments be made the ultimate authority in dealing with governments' budgets.

Presenters and discussants assessed the institutional basis that parliaments require to effectively backstop accountability and transparency. There was general agreement that a much better furnishing was needed to enable legislatures to fulfil that function. Premnath Ramnah, Speaker of the National Assembly of Mauritius, explained that parliamentarians in his country had no offices, no assistants and no researchers at all. Norbert Mao stressed the need for better funding and staffing by citing the practical example of an 800-pages-report on a dam project that was put before the Ugandan parliament. Lacking a summary, the report had needed to be analysed and distilled by several of the only sixteen researchers that work for Uganda's 300 parliamentarians. The MP stressed that far more and skilled support staff was needed to facilitate informed and advised decision-making in parliament.

But furnishing matters not only with regard to technical capacity. The conference noted that a sufficient, own budget was also needed to provide for parliaments' autonomy and to guarantee their freedom of expression, especially in areas where their views contested with government positions.

Participants agreed on the importance of access to information. The assemblies' tools, such as hearings, investigations, motions, committees, etc. could only be applied effectively if they were based on a proper understanding of the facts. Conny Mayer, Member of Parliament, specified that in particular, the different access to information that parliaments and executives have poses a great challenge to parliamentarians trying to confront governments, even in Germany.

Special reference was made to the secrecy that usually surrounds military spending. More often than not, such government data is classified, which prevents parliaments from playing an informed oversight role. Abdoulie Janneh stressed the need for complete and concise information, which cannot be taken for granted in governments' practice of information. He underlined that assemblies therefore needed to rely heavily on other, independent sources, such as the academia and civil society. Helen Jackson, Member of the UK House of Commons, emphasized the importance of free and fair media as well as the freedom of information. The latter is often lacking in European countries, too, and had only been addressed in the UK after the Labour Government took office.

Ben Turok, Member of the South African Parliament, demanded accountability to be seen as something broader than just a technical or financial matter. He stressed the importance of the way in which the parliament, the judiciary and the executive actually interact politically, and cited the South African experience where the existence of a well-funded parliament had not prevented Apartheid policy.

German Federal Audit Office (Bundesrechnungshof) and the Parliamentary Audit Committee (Rechnungsprüfungsausschuss) back

The day before the conference started, Lukas Elles, Ministerial Counsellor at the Federal Audit Office (BRH) provided participants with an overview of the German system of parliamentary oversight of public spending. He detailed the practical cooperation between his institution and the relevant parliamentary committees. The BRH, he argued, was created as an independent organisation which reports directly to parliament. Its investigations serve to meaningfully complement information that parliament receives from government, both to prevent mis- and overspending. While the parliamentary committee can ask the BRH to comment on particular issues, it has no right to direct the organisation in any way. Far beyond parliamentary requests, the institution produces annual auditing reports and carries out investigations on its own initiative.

The Federal Audit Office has no executive powers. It is dependent on parliament to follow up on recommendations in auditing reports. However, its proven track record of neutral and substantive investigation, combined with considerable media interest, indirectly renders the institution relatively powerful.

Empowerment and Emancipation of Parliamentary

Oversight Participants regretted the lack of parliaments' formal rights in and access to decision making processes. Catherine Namugala, MP from Zambia, pointed to deficits in many African constitutions which she found not to provide for effective parliamentary oversight, because executives were not actually compelled to implement parliaments' decisions. She challenged Western governments to push for improvements in this area, in particular by highlighting the role of parliaments in bilateral economic cooperation agreements. Norbert Mao stressed that - despite their oversight roles - parliaments are not involved in loan negotiations e.g. with the IMF and the World Bank. He demanded parliaments not to be reduced to rubber stamp institutions for government or IMF policy.

Citing a lack of respect for parliaments on the part of many African governments, Norbert Mao and Christian Ruck (Member of Parliament German Bundestag) called on the European participants to meet parliaments during each of their visits to Africa. Norbert Mao stressed that governments had to be made to understand that the assemblies represent the people, and they had to deal with these MPs for the time being, even when they considered them "as little more than potato growers". On the same note, participants underlined the need to establish strong networks between parliaments and among parliamentarians, so that the assemblies can be strengthened by a united stand when they demand government accountability.

Andre Dassoundo, Second Parliamentary Secretary of the National Assembly of Benin, inspired the conference by describing an example of the creative means that parliaments have at their disposal beyond the formal procedures. In his home country Benin, a delegation of the parliament's leadership visited several municipalities with the press after the parliament had noted a lessening of the monitoring and oversight of budget spending. Parliament thereby mobilised a lot of public attention and collected numerous sound arguments for the upcoming parliament debate on budget implementation.

Parliaments' Stakes in NePAD and the APRM

What, it was asked, can the NePAD process contribute to strengthen parliamentary accountability and transparency? Overall, it was observed that parliaments are yet to actively participate in and benefit from NePAD. While the manifold activities under the programme were welcome across the board, several African discussants pointed out the lack of resources for NePAD. Furthermore, the programme still needed to prove itself in the form of concrete outcomes. Parliaments are particularly challenged to ensure that the findings of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) are translated into binding political commitments to implementation.

Abdoulie Janneh wished to see parliaments as the final national oversight institution in the Peer Review, which is widely considered as the key component to the achievement of good governance. The speaker said that parliaments must be involved in this institutionalised assessment mechanism to make it credible and reflective of a country's needs so that it can be as useful as possible. The UNDP official called on parliaments to proactively take charge of NePAD. Through the governance programmes it has in every African country, UNDP supports this "instrument to look at the gaps at the country level" throughout the continent.

The Regional Director for Africa and Middle East at Transparency International (TI), Muzong Kodi, outlined NePAD's importance in the struggle to establish good governance. The organization considers NePAD's core document on good governance (which serves as the basis of the Peer Review Mechanism) as fundamental to the fight against corruption. For TI, NePAD has top priority, particularly because African leaders themselves have taken a joint responsibility to establish clear criteria of good governance. The organization lobbies for a genuine involvement of parliaments to safeguard NePAD's implementation.

Awareness

Parliamentarians' knowledge of NePAD and the APRM appear to be a major obstacle to their effective engagement. Ibra Diouf, 1st Rapporteur in the Committee on Budget Control and Accounts of the ECOWAS Parliament and an MP in Senegal, saw this as a deficit among both African and European parliaments. Hans-Christian Ströbele, Member of Parliament German Bundestag, agreed by asking how the German parliament should support NePAD if most MPs were not even aware of it and when interest in Africa was as limited as it is. Rodwell Munyenyembe, Speaker of the National Assembly of Malawi, painted a similar picture of the Malawian parliament. He stated that most of the 193 members would have a problem explaining what NePAD means. The discussants agreed with Ali Nouhoum Diallo, Speaker of the ECOWAS Parliament, that a better dissemination of information, practical workshops and capacity building were needed to enable parliaments in Africa and Europe to monitor the implementation of NePAD and APRM and to put forward arguments in favour of both programmes.

Networking

Asking whether the five African regional parliaments had sufficient institutional capacity to get engaged in NePAD, Ibra Diouf pointed to the importance of building specific networks among the parliaments. E.g. the ECOWAS Parliament has been working with Pan-African Parliamentarians' Forum for NePAD (in Cotonou) to that end. Other participants supported this call and reiterated the need to define the roles of national parliaments, regional parliamentary assemblies and the PAP in the context of NePAD. Abdoulrahim Balarabe, Member of Parliament from Niger, reported that the NePAD Parliamentarians Forum had not come a long way since it held its first meeting in Cotonou. Alfa-Niaky Barry, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Forum to NePAD, later responded that the meeting of speakers of parliaments in 2002 had set up the necessary structures and training had taken place. He also underlined his readiness to work as a facilitator of dialogue with the PAP and national and regional parliaments and appealed to AWEPA and InWEnt for the establishment of partnership.

Ben Turok reported of a NePAD Contact Group of African Parliamentarians which was called upon by Prof. Wiseman Nkuhlu and had held meetings in Nairobi and Cape Town. The parallel existence of this grouping, the Parliamentary Forum to NePAD, and efforts of the Pan-African Parliament underscores that a consolidated, single initiative by African parliaments to accompany the NePAD process is yet to be defined.

Illustrating a more informal oversight function that parliaments can play under NePAD, Norbert Mao introduced a network called "Parliamentarians' Implementation Watch", which monitors the implementation of development programmes and reports back to European parliamentarians.

Parliaments, Civil Society and Transparency

The conference also raised the question how civil society organisations can and do support parliaments in their oversight functions. Muzong Kodi of Transparency International (TI) said his organization considered African parliamentarians as their most important allies in the fight against corruption, which it sees as the "main cause of poverty". TI's national chapters act as secretariats for the African Parliamentarians Network Against Corruption (APNAC) and work to support parliamentarians.

Illustrating the scope of the problem, Kodi cited the latest TI Corruption Perception Index, which showed persistently high levels of corruption around the African continent. Out of 26 rated countries, only two, Botswana and Tunisia, had scored better than five points on a scale from one to ten. In view of this "long way to go", his organization wished to engage through the APRM, aiming at enhancing transparency and accountability.

In particular, TI wishes to promote a meaningful engagement of African civil society. The NGO wants to work with the NePAD Secretariat and encourages liaison with civil society. In Kodi's analysis, the lack of timely information also presents a serious obstacle to greater participation and engagement of civil society organisations, which often lack even basic understanding of NePAD and the APRM.

TI itself uses baseline research, public outreach, stakeholder meetings, advocacy campaigns, networking with civil society and parliaments as well as commentary on the national action plans to mobilise strong support for the APRM. It lobbies for a vigorous application of the four APRM indicators. In this context, Muzong Kodi stressed the need for extensive interviews with stakeholders in the respective countries, which TI is committed to conduct. Moreover, the signing and implementation of international conventions was seen as a crucial benchmark in the APRM. Kodi reported that only 32 African states had signed the UN Convention against Corruption, and only four of them had actually ratified it to this point. He described the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption as partly more advanced and therefore saw it as complementary to UN Convention. However, the African Union Convention is yet to acquire the 15 ratifications that are needed for it to take effect.

External Response to Corruption: Pressure or Advisory?

The debate displayed differences among participants on the right approach to governments whose countries score high on corruption indexes. Langa Zita, Member of the South African Parliament, demanded an investment boycott on some of the most corrupt governments to exert pressure for change, while Muzong Kodi expressed TI's conviction that countries with high levels of corruption should not be punished. Instead, they should be engaged in a constructive discourse and receive help to overcome the problem. On a similar note, Norbert Mao and Edith Hazel (Member of Ghana's Parliament) told the audience that TI reports had made governments fearful in the past, because bad performers were exposed and felt offended, yet the situation had improved recently and the Transparency Index had gained acceptance, e.g. in Kenya. Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International, clarified that his organization saw its role in measuring corruption within each society and in developing policies to tackle corruption in partnership with governments. The TI Index is a mathematical combination of 18 sources of information which are produced by conducting extensive interviews on corruption perception realities. Mr. Eigen pointed out that TI's reports were politically neutral but provided tools which could be used both by parliamentary opposition and civil society to hold government accountable. E.g. two earlier TI reports were on Kenya were strongly disliked by the former Moi government while the opposition used them to mobilise public support on its side. Countering frequent complaints that the TI Corruption Index produces a biased picture by focussing exclusively on bribe-taking, Peter Eigen informed the conference about a complementary Bribe Payers Index that TI publishes every second year.

Trans-national Corporations and Corruption

Strategies of dealing with trans-national corporations involved in corrupt practices were another hot issue in the debate. TI is part of the "publish what you pay" campaign that promotes transparency in the extractive industries sector. While Langa Zita demanded that companies investing in most corrupt countries should be indexed, Peter Eigen reported progress with regard to laws and regulations. According to the chairman, international companies involved in bribery could now be prosecuted in Germany. Furthermore, bribes in international business were eventually prohibited under German law in 1999, and thus are no longer tax-deductible either. He added that TI was eagerly awaiting prosecution requests from developing countries and invited parliamentarians to cooperate with TI in this area. Hans-Christian Ströbele on his part noted that an anti-corruption register had still not been established in Europe.

European Safe Harbours for Illicit Funds

Abdoulrahim Balarabe pointed to the fact most of the money diverted from international development aid found safe harbours on European bank accounts. The erosion of public funding could not be stopped unless this issue was addressed with more vigour. Ali Nouhoum Diallo, Speaker of the ECOWAS Parliament, asked whether and how countries that fall victims of such crimes could restore their capital. Nigeria had managed to recover some of its funds, while economic crimes committed under Toure's regime had simply been put aside. Michael Woods, Member of the Irish Parliament, explained that much of the problem was rooted in the fact that such funds could usually not be ceased before the alleged owner is legally convicted of corruption.

"Parliamentary Autocracy" and Whistle Blowers

Njoki Ndung'u, Member of Parliament from Kenya, challenged the participants by raising the issue of corruption among parliamentarians. Who, she asked, checks on MPs who ask questions for cash, or who sell their voting behaviour e.g. to foreign investors? In the same context, she demanded a discussion on the protection of whistle-blowers who speak out about fellow members of parliament accepting cash. Peter Eigen responded with a reference to the clear transparency regulations in the South African constitution, which could be worked into other constitutions as well. Muzong Kodi referred to the Integrity Prize that Transparency International awards annually to enhance position of whistle blowers. Par Granstedt, First Vice President of European Parliamentarians for Africa (AWEPA), pointed to the need to protect whistle blowers in Europe, too.

The African Peer Review Mechanism in Practice

The conference received experience reports on the application of the first APR Mechanisms in Ghana and Kenya. Kofi Konradu Apraku, Ghanaian Minister for Regional Cooperation and NePAD, explained that the Peer Review was first and foremost a comprehensive review of a country's development vision, policies, and programmes. Rather than stressing the involvement of external actors, the minister underlined that the process brings countries and their governments "eye to eye with the enemy: Us".

In order to make the review as objective as possible, the National APRM Governing Council, which is comprised of 7 distinguished Ghanaians who never held government positions, decided to create National Technical Review Teams consisting of competent independent think tanks and civil society organizations. These independent technical teams went out to the country with APRM questionnaires to conduct self-evaluations in the areas of democracy and good political governance, economic governance and management, corporate governance and socio-economic development.

Inclusiveness is a marked characteristic of the APRM. In Ghana, big efforts were made for broad consultations with all relevant stakeholders, involving civil society, parliament, the judiciary, the electoral commission, the fraud office, military, police, every ministry, etc. These talks were held to discuss the evolving Review Process and to ensure the production of a report that is objective enough to be able to learn from it. The minister expressed his belief that the system has performed objectively. He admitted that the process had opened his eyes for issues that he never thought were important. By asking the right questions, the APRM had made him more sensitive to the real issues and policies.

Marie-Angelique Savane, Chairlady of the APR Panel of Eminent Persons, provided the conference with an initial assessment of the APRM, which had been set up during the Durban Summit in 2002 on the basis of the leaders' agreement to clarify what good governance meant for Africa under NePAD. The precise mandate was later defined in 2003 in Abuja. Her Panel of seven eminent persons was finally appointed in May 2004 to guide the process. Mrs. Savané stressed that Africa was the first continent to attempt such a review mechanism.

The chairlady detailed the course of the procedure, which includes the commitment of the respective government to an independent process that is partly conducted by outsiders and the results of which will eventually be published. The Panel of Eminent Persons comes in to identify the personnel who carry out the actual assessment. Government, civil society, the corporate sector, the media, the academia, NGOs, human rights organisations and trade unions form a representative national commission. Awareness raising missions explain the purpose of the exercise to stakeholders and the wider public. In a second step, UNDP helps to draw up an MoU in which the government commits itself to the full freedom for researchers and staff.

From kick-off, the entire process takes about nine months, during which the National Commission designs a national action plan that goes out to all stakeholders for feedback. A team of strategic partners such as the ECA, UNDP and the World Bank visits the respective country for three weeks to study how well-founded the national action plan is. It then reports back to government. The final report is to be sent to the government and published thereafter.

Kenya's Permanent Secretary of Kenya's Ministry of Planning and National Development, David S. O. Nalo, contextualised the country's APRM process with the high expectations that the NARC government needs to meet after its election ended the Moi era at the end of 2002. The APRM fits in with Kenya's Economic Recovery Strategy, which focuses on economic development and equity, and is seen as an opportunity to involve all political actors in an inclusive and participatory process similar to the one in Ghana. The Minister declared that the APRM is expected to assist Kenya in setting up an effective monitoring and evaluation system for its development policies and institutional effectiveness. Particular emphasis was therefore placed on sound and "testable" methodologies. David Nalo further stressed the need to remain flexible both with regard to time and approach, rather than to follow strict timetables.

Participation of Civil Society and Parliaments in the APRM

The debate produced a mixed picture of parliamentary and civil society engagement in the APRM. While the inclusive design of the process explicitly invited parliaments to participate, too many parliaments do not seize the opportunity yet. Marie-Angelique Savane reported that the MPs had a tendency to "pop in and pop out" of consultations rather than contributing continuously. Despite the openness of the APRM, extra efforts needed to be undertaken to actually involve the parliamentarians.

Kofi Apraku detailed that Ghana's APRM Secretariat had established a civil society liaison desk to support civil society participation. Next to the actual process, some of these stakeholders are undertaking a shadow review of the APRM on their own accord.

Participants repeatedly highlighted that parliaments, provided they were well-informed about NePAD and the APRM, had a lot to contribute to the "popularisation" of both programmes, as demanded in the NePAD basic document. No government has so far made an effort towards this goal. Against this background, it appeared ever the more regrettable that the assemblies had not been involved early on in NePAD, and were still not included to the desired extent.

David Nalo pointed out that the APRM needed to be translated into "ordinary language" before it could be disseminated effectively. Kofi Apraku recalled the outreach efforts undertaken in Ghana, where the APRM has been presented to civil society stakeholders at various levels and from all sorts of target groups, including physically challenged, women's groups, the chiefs, etc.

Discussants agreed with Uschi Eid that NePAD and the APRM need to be taken down to the local level if society was to be engaged meaningfully. Rodwell Munyenyembe attributed the difficulties of involving the local level to the top-down nature of NePAD, which in his view contributes to the lack of understanding at the grass roots. How, Munyenyembe wondered, can NePAD be made relevant to the powerful local councillors in Malawi if it is not understood? Translating APRM

Findings into Practice

In view of the fact that the first set of Peer Reviews is still on-going, an assessment of its actual outcomes appeared pre-mature. Thus, the discussion focussed on the characteristics of the APRM and the process as a whole. Starting out, Schadrack Niyonkuru, Member of the Burundian Parliament, asked the audience what mechanisms will guarantee that the findings of APRM are not suppressed or denied. Ibra Diouf, while expressing his appreciation of the NePAD process, criticised the wholesomely voluntary nature of the APRM. The MP noted that states were neither under pressure to translate the APRM's conclusions into practice, nor to engage in it in the first place. Furthermore, Mr. Diouf observed a contradiction between the fact that most external interventions in Africa are of obligatory nature while the APRM, Africa's own initiative, is not binding.

To the contrary, Mrs. Savane argued that the APRM was not an enforcement mechanism. She saw the purpose of the APRM in political dialogue between all stakeholders, and in providing a country with a refined feedback on its governance set-up. Rather than giving marks or criticising governments, the idea was to build a broad consensus, including the views of the head of state. Last not least, she presented the APRM as a mechanism that allows African states to share their experiences. David Nalo agreed and pointed out that the Government of Kenya saw the APRM as a means of attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), to which it had committed itself rather than being coerced.

Engaging African States in the APRM

Although the question was posed repeatedly, the debate did not come up with suggestions as to how more states could be encouraged to accede to the APRM. So far, only 23 of the 53 African Union member states subscribe to it. Recalling the failures of earlier, compulsory exercises, Mrs. Savane reiterated her conviction that voluntary accession was the only way to buy in the necessary support of political leaders. Consensus building. Conduicive environment for people to move. Kofi Apraku added that the APRM's voluntary nature made it even more credible. In the Minister's view, the setup assures that the APRM does not have to please anybody, and that it may be conducted regardless of positive or negative judgements of its outcomes. Schadrack Niyonkuru called on Western governments to take up the APRM initiative to ensure that it does not find the same fate as so many earlier efforts.

Voluntary or Obligatory Mechanisms?

Ali Nouhoum Diallo, Speaker of the ECOWAS Parliament, picked up the wider, earlier debate on imposition versus self-commitment. Recalling Minister Eid's appreciation of the external imposition of democracy on Germany, he expressed his concerns if that notion was to be applied to Africa. The speaker stressed the need to involve people's own traditions and desires for democracy in order not to generate resentment. Pointedly underlining the need for a locally-rooted transformation, Prof. Diallo exclaimed: "It was not just the invention of the ballot box that brought democracy. And Africa is seeking democracy for itself!"

Supporting Prof. Diallo's statement, Ben Turok, Member of the South African Parliament, highlighted the differences between Germany's history of imposition and the one that IMF and World Bank exerted in Africa for a long time. Furthermore, he observed that the imposition of democratic systems is inherently contradictory as imposition itself violates democratic principles.

Conclusions

While the conference observed progress on parliaments' involvement with NePAD, on balance, it concluded that much remained to be done. Initially, African governments had discussed NePAD with the G8 leaders long before the programme was ever taken before an African parliament, Uschi Eid noted. Yet nowadays, parliaments are increasingly seen as important partners, in the course of the NePAD process and beyond. Ulrich Heinrich, Member of Parliament German Bundestag, underlined the need to bring parliaments into NePAD: "We cannot even with the best intentions bring benefits to the people without involving them". Thus, he argued, parliamentarians as the legitimate representatives of NePAD's intended beneficiaries needed to be involved deeply.

African participants made similar observations. Antoine Kolawole Idji, Speaker of Benin's National Assembly and Chairman of the African Parliamentarians' Forum for NePAD, felt that NePAD has primarily remained at the executive level and parliamentarians' appreciation of it has not yet reached the extent that one might desire. On the other hand, Roch Marc Christian Kabore, President of the National Assembly of Burkina Faso, stated that his and other parliaments were beginning to take ownership of NePAD, inter alia by monitoring the programme's implementation. Despite all remaining obstacles, the participants agreed, much more could already be done by exploiting the existing opportunities.

The conference recognized the crucial role that NePAD has attained over time. While scepticism of the programme had initially been high, especially when African governments failed to intervene effectively in the Zimbabwe crisis, it is now broadly accepted as the "blueprint" for Africa's development partnership with the wealthy nations. Turning to the policy support that parliaments and governments of G8 and EU member states can mobilise to support NePAD, Helen Jackson informed the conference of British parliamentarians' upsurge of interest towards Africa ever since Prime Minister Tony Blair launched the Commission for Africa. She underscored that the commission was not intended to replace NePAD, but rather to raise the profile of this crucial African initiative, to which the MPs had now made a firm commitment.

While participants agreed that a longer-term perspective was required to assess NePAD's achievements adequately, it was acknowledged that the programme has already been a cornerstone of the African Union's vitalisation process. Pete Ondeng, (Chief Executive Officer of the Nepad Secretariat Kenya), warned that one of NePAD's biggest enemies is widespread pessimism, both in Africa and in Europe. He assured the audience of his conviction that as a consequence of the programme, "Africa's discussions will emerge from within" after a period of 5-10 years from now.

Round Table: Current Issues of German Development Cooperation with Africa

On the second day of the conference, participants were invited to a round table on current issues of German development cooperation with Africa. The aim of the BMZ was to provide an informal policy platform particularly for the African participants to exchange ideas on Germany's assistance without the pressure of immediate decision-making and free from the constraints of protocol. Parliamentary Secretary of State Uschi Eid welcomed the opportunity for ministry staff to hear the views of the African MPs and invited participants to hold a frank and open debate in continuation of the conference.

Ralf Schröder, Head of Division for Regional Development Policy on Southern Africa at the BMZ briefed the meeting on the essentials of German bilateral development cooperation with Sub-Saharan Africa, which amounted to the tune of about one billion Euros in 2002. This assistance forms part of Germany's commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with particular emphasis being placed on poverty alleviation and income growth, as well as democratisation. The importance of local ownership and the need to support good governance and the formation of sound institutions are the key lessons that Germany drew from past experiences. As a result, support to those actors and processes which seriously try to reform institutions and try to improve governance at the national and regional level is key to Germany' approach of assistance. In particular, this involves support to multi-party elections, the new dynamics of the African Union, NePAD and the APRM, the PRSP Process and regional cooperation schemes. Peace-keeping and conflict resolution, intra-regional trade as well as the improvement of investment conditions for private sector investment are key issues addressed within this framework. In his conclusions, Ralf Schröder revisited the importance of assistance impacts on the institutional frameworks in partner countries and underlined that change was underway from the formerly sectoral perspective of development cooperation to a process- and actors-focussed one. He stressed the need for mutually accountable partnerships that should primarily be based on reasonable African agendas, acknowledging that greater efforts needed to be undertaken to involve parliaments in the formulation and oversight of these agendas, e.g. in the PRSP process.

As the first African respondent, Gertrude Mongella criticised what she often observed to be a "very event-focussed approach". Instead, she noted, the policy dialogue needed to be made a continuous process especially between the German government and African parliaments, which too often remained marginalized from the discourse. Picking up Mr. Schroeder's introduction, the president of the Pan-African Parliament repeated her earlier call for an "African Agenda". She viewed such a vision as the essential basis to be able to engage in a continuous dialogue. It would allow Africa to relate to its shared goals and to build on it a truly accountable partnership with the North. President Mongella warned that the latter also required a correction of Africa's imagery. So long as Africa was only looked upon as "needy", true partnership lacked the indispensable level playing field and therefore could not exploit the mutually existing opportunities. She called on the participants to emphasize opportunities and initiatives by parading successes such as the Pan-African Parliament, the Court of Justice and the Peace and Security Council rather than displaying Africa's poverty. In her conclusions, Gertrude Mongella expressed the Pan-African Parliament's intention to watch over the application of Good Governance in the further development of the AU and NePAD and appealed to the German government to continue the dialogue process.

In his intervention, Dawit Yohannes, Speaker of Ethiopia's House of Peoples' Representatives, highlighted the role as well as the underlying concept of the state. Reviewing the European process of state formation, he noted that Africa by and large lacked the distinct cultural and linguistic features to develop successful nation states. African governments were challenged to overcome armed rebellions and the defective states that emerged from colonial history. While noting that the formation of the Pan-African Parliament may appear artificial because many African governments do not really have an interest in democratization in the domestic sphere, the speaker welcomed it as an African institution which could support the effort on a trans-national level. Dawit Yohannes concluded by stating that the African state can only gain legitimacy as a development state, disregarding military power as the defining element. Development states needed firm partnerships with European states such as the ones embedded in NePAD and the APRM to facilitate the African efforts to address the challenges.

The issue of the "agenda", as reflected in all the three introductory speeches, featured prominently throughout the discussion. Karl Prinz, (Head of the West and Central Africa Division of the German Federal Foreign Office) noted that Africa entered more into the focus of attention of the global powers over the past five to six years. The attendance of an African delegation had become a routine for the Annual G8 Summit, and discussions had widened beyond development, also covering security and conflict issues. While welcoming this increased attention, Pete Ondeng, observed the difficulty that Western development agendas tended to undergo continuous shifts. Recalling the various "fashions" of development assistance, Mr. Ondeng expressed his expectation that even the current focus on governance will shift at some point. He urged a differentiation between short- and long-term needs for development and demanded governments to stay on course with the longer-term objectives of the "Agenda". The Head of the BMZ's East Africa Division, Thomas Albert, underlined that German assistance and in fact the European approach was to listen to Africa's priorities and to act along those lines, picking the elements that fit with the ministry's mind set. The PRSP process was seen to reflect this partnership approach.

Picking up Gertrude Mongella's call for a change of the African imagery, State Secretary Uschi Eid pointed out that development aid was no longer dominated by the patronizing and morally loaded approach of the past, but was now based on the conviction that there cannot be peace and security on a global level so long as parts of the world are deprived of prosperity. Development assistance was therefore a means of fighting terrorism and preventing refugee movements. In a similar fashion, Par Granstedt, First Vice President of European Parliamentarians for Africa (AWEPA), underscored the need to integrate trade relations with development policy in order to create a win-win situation rather than a one-sided aid relationship where one side always gives and the other sides is perceived as the receiving end only.

Applying the issue of accountability to the German Development Cooperation itself, Catherine Namugala, Member of the Zambian Parliament, took the debate to a more concrete level. She asked whether mechanisms were in place to watch over the government's implementation of its pledges, and proposed such a mechanism to be installed on the OECD level. Uschi Eid agreed that such accountability and transparency was crucial in today's partnership approach. She encouraged African parliamentarians to demand such accountability on the country level and confirmed the need to make the implementation of development assistance more accountable to our own parliamentary budget committees, too.

Antoine Kolawole Idji, Speaker of Benin's National Assembly and Chairman of the African Parliamentarians' Forum for NePAD, observed that on the one hand Africa's development agenda needs to fit into many bilateral frameworks, and on the other, there is a huge overlap e.g. with UK's assistance approach. It was against this background that he asked what could be done to strengthen the relevance of the multilateral level in development assistance. Helen Jackson, Member of the UK House of Commons, supported the question and demanded more to be done to jointly approach Africa's development needs on the European level? She stressed that parliamentarians - though their work in the foreign and development committees - needed to make sure that Africa was the focus of development assistance throughout Europe. While Ralf Schröder pointed out the German government's strong commitment to multilateral development assistance, Thomas Albert cautioned that such did not require an additional integration of bilateral approaches into a single European or multilateral development agenda. Instead, he stated, bilateral and multilateral assistance is practically integrated at the country level, where all efforts now come under the roof of the PRSP.

Picking up the complex debate on conditionality and priorities, Oscar Motswagae, Deputy Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Botswana, described two categories of developing countries: Those that are not performing well in terms of their political leadership, and support to whom is withdrawn at the expense of the ordinary people, and those that are also in need of assistance, but whose governance system was performing so well that assistance has partly been withdrawn. The Permanent Secretary placed his home country Botswana in the second camp and asked why well-performing countries were punished by a decrease in inputs. In his response, Ralf Schroeder explained that Germany was phasing out some support to Botswana on the basis of resources limitations. Furthermore, he explained that with a an average per capita income of more than 4.000 US dollars, Botswana was a rich country in the African context, where the average is around 250 US dollars per capita. Karl Prinz placed the debate within the context of the Europeanization of development assistance. According to Mr. Prinz, the decrease of German bilateral assistance and the corresponding increase of the EU's multilateral assistance has already made the EU the most important development partner for Africa. Botswana, he argued, will be addressed under the European Development Fund rather than under bilateral German assistance in the future.

Coming back to the particular role of parliaments, the conference agreed that the people's representatives had a crucial role to play in defining the agenda - inter alia in the course of the PRSP and the APRM processes - and in making programmes transparent and accountable. Abdoulrahim Balarabe, Member of Parliament from Niger, stressed the importance of parliaments in monitoring the translation of the PRSP into national law, which cannot be taken for granted. He appreciated that the G8 through NePAD had made a nine million US dollar fund available for capacity building in parliaments, but added that much more remained to be done. Njoki Ndung'u, Member of Parliament from Kenya, highlighted the practical value of the German Bundestag's committee system and reported that the Kenyan parliament was only now making these relevant. She asked the German government to provide the relevant committees with information on German assistance in the future, so that effective oversight could take place. Edith Hazel, Member of the Ghanaian Parliament, requested that such committees be involved in discussions with international partners early on. She pointed to the problem that so far, e.g. bank loans were often only discussed with ministers who happened to be MPs at the same time. Helmut Asche, Chief Economist of the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), recalled earlier efforts of bilateral assistance to involve parliaments in the PRSP, e.g. in Ethiopia, Madagascar and Mauritania, observing that the outcome had not been too overwhelming.

Ralf Schroeder's introductory remark on the refocusing of German assistance from a sectoral perspective to a process- and actors-focussed one caused concern. Ali Nouhoum Diallo, Speaker of the ECOWAS Parliament, asked why the BMZ was withdrawing from the fields of technical capacity building or education? Helmut Asche responded that Germany would certainly not retire from social sector support. The idea was to set priorities and develop a useful division of labour nationally and internationally, which he considered as a healthy move. Good governance, Mr. Asche said, will certainly stay a focus of German development assistance, adding that the actual contents of these programmes were not "fixed". While he admitted that e.g. the focus that BMZ and GTZ maintain on decentralisation in a good dozen of African countries first and foremost represented German priorities, African priorities determined what kind of activities are actually carried out under this umbrella.

Directing participants' attention to the need for a new emergence of development economics, Ben Turok, tabled a very practical proposal. Based on his observation that African universities had become "mimics" of European universities, focussing on macro-economy rather than development economy, he called on the German government to fund a chair for development economics at every African university. Helmut Asche appreciated the proposal and noted that Germany itself lacked such economists.

Participants also picked up the German commitment to support private sector investment. Antoine Kolawole Idji provided the examples of Benin's cotton production and the banana sector. How, he asked, can private sector investment in these promising fields be ensured so that the resulting income can be used to help with other problems? Njoki Ndung'u highlighted how conditionality in private sector assistance made progress difficult. She cited the example of a flower trade scheme which would have received support by a certain donor if the trade went through that European country. However, the scheme did not work out because the flowers were meant for the Japanese market and a detour trade through Europe would have taken too long. Norbert Mao, MP from Uganda, pointed to the crucial role of the middle class in private sector development. Edith Hazel related the issue back to the major theme of the conference: The biggest obstacle to private sector investment was the high risk perception of Africa as a business and market place. Good governance, she said, was the key to address this problem, and parliaments had a crucial role in it. Uschi Eid welcomed the remarks on the private sector and stressed the particular potential that she saw on the regional level. She pledged to reduce trade barriers and stated that private sector promotion had become an international mainstream policy.

Top of page

Contents	Speeches/Issues Notes	EF Homepage
Preface	Programme	EF Texte und Berichte
Summary of Discussions	List of Participants