Common African political governance issues: lessons from six early APRM reports

This paper analyses the discussion and recommendations about Africa's pressing political governance issues - including the separation of powers, election management and corruption - from the APRM reports of Ghana, Rwanda, Kenya, South Africa, Algeria and Benin.

The author argues that these first six reports reveal a distinct gap between the admirable intentions enshrined in the countries' constitutions and the situation in reality. Many states pay lip service to the principle of the separation of powers but then proceed to disregard or override this commitment in day-to-day practice.

The author asserts that the manipulation of formal rules for elite advantage is embedded in the culture of many African states. The key problem is the lack of constitutionalism - i.e. an absence of a firm set of rules designed to control and minimise government authority. The tripod that should ensure that no single leg of government is more powerful than the other two combined is unbalanced. The consequence is that the executive becomes dominant, the legislature becomes less effective in providing checks and balances, and the judiciary sometimes loses its necessary independence.

This, the author argues, stifles progress and has other repercussions such as:

• exacerbating conflict over land, especially where ethnicity is involved
• affecting human rights, elections and decentralisation programmes
• encouraging corruption.

The author concludes with a question: if the APRM is to bring true democracy and better governance to Africa, how does it deal with countries that disregard its recommendations?

Adapted from the author’s abstract