Guidelines for the process

The APRM is shaped by several provisions that are determined in the base documents. The continental standard questionnaire, the prescribed institu-tional setup, the general process and timelines in the process provide basic orientation and core principles to actors in participating states. The continen-tal templates, however, are “considered a guide rather than a gospel” (Her-bert / Gruzd 2008, 37).

One of the key tools that makes the methodology for the APR process opera-tional is the continental standard questionnaire. It is prepared at the continen-tal level by the APR Panel and APR Secretariat (two institutions described below). The questionnaire is used by all participating countries as a basis for the national self-assessment, i. e. adaptations to national peculiarities are acknowledged. The questionnaire, however, determines the general course of assessment of each review. Such standardisation is crucial, since the APRM

“needs to be grounded in valid information, the imperative of creating credible data bases is paramount so as to avoid conclusions or review judgments that may be wrongly premised” (UNDP 2006, 48).

According to the NEPAD framework, the questionnaire is organised in four sections spelling out detailed criteria for assessment in the respective four governance areas (cf. AU / NEPAD 2005). The internal logic of the question-naire is organised along the following broad items: (i) definitions and (ii) objectives, followed by components against which country action is assessed:

(iii) Standards and codes, (iv) questions and (v) indicators.

The whole document starts first with some definitions of what is considered as good political, economic and corporate governance in light of the NEPAD Declaration, including a definition of socio-economic development. For in-stance, good governance is normatively defined as

“creating well-functioning and accountable institutions − political, judi-cial and administrative − which citizens regard as legitimate, in which they can participate in decisions that affect their daily lives and by which they are empowered” (AU / NEPAD 2005, 17).

Second, objectives define the essential elements of the overall goal that must be achieved by a country in each focus area. Third, a list of relevant standards and codes that refer to the objective follows. A country dealing with the ques-tionnaire is hence supposed to give an overview of standards and codes cur-rently in force; and it is subsequently measured against these. Fourth,

ques-tions focus on the actual practise and compliance within a country with re-gard to the objectives and the codes, how is it done and with what results.

Fifth, indicators are named as the type of evidence that is expected in the replies of countries. The indicators serve to highlight certain aspects of the objective, standard or code that are generally recognised as measures of per-formance (cf. AU / NEPAD 2005).

The questionnaire is thus asking about norms and practise. For example, in area one under the objective to uphold the separation of powers, the question

“how would you rate the independence of the legislative body in your coun-try?” (AU / NEPAD 2005, 34). It is then further broken down to provide evidence of legal provisions and resource allocation establishing the inde-pendence of the legislature, and continues to go beyond this by also asking for the description of measures taken to sustain progress towards independ-ence, e. g. training (cf. AU / NEPAD 2005, 34 f.). Other questions in the area of good political governance, target the objective to ensure accountable and efficient civil service and also ask for practise in recent years. One indicator explicitly demands to

“provide evidence of cases of disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal and prosecution of civil servants related to the shortcomings of service de-livery“ (AU / NEPAD 2005, 36).

The questionnaire states that even though the four governance areas are treated as separate in the self-assessment, they are closely interconnected.

Thus, eight cross-cutting issues are identified to encourage holistic and main-streamed responses by participating countries – which would be a substantial task to developed countries and poses even more of a challenge to developing countries with limited resources. The cross-cutting issues are (cf. AU / NEPAD 2005, 11 f.):

— Poverty eradication,

— gender balance,

— decentralisation,

— country capacities to participate in the APRM,

— access to and dissemination of information,

— corruption,

— broad-based participation, and

— sustainability in both financial, social and environmental issues.

The complete questionnaire has been criticised as too long and repetitive.

Separation into four areas make research on the cross-cutting issues particu-larly difficult (cf. Herbert / Gruzd 2008, 39). Definitely, some topics can be grouped in a different way to avoid duplications or questions about similar issues can be merged to shorten the whole exercise. Critics pointed out that there are tendencies in some questions to ask for too much detail without policy relevance, thus straining scarce resources. As the APRM is a tool aim-ing to improve governance and is inspired by the sharaim-ing of best practises, the questionnaire should also provide space for suggestions for solutions, e. g.

particular strengths of institutions in coping with challenges. Structuring it around institutions would be an alternative way of taking research on the issues at the country level forward (Herbert / Gruzd 2008, 40–41). Critics also mentioned that some verbalisations in the questionnaire are value-laden and should have been phrased more neutrally. As an example for the latter approach they cite the question “how has decentralisation contributed to the quality of governance?” (AU / NEPAD 2005, 31), which is ignoring that decentralisation could also have negative effects on governance; respondents should be left with a choice to make up their mind about the concept. Like-wise, suggestive wording on free trade or regional integration is criticised (cf.

Herbert / Gruzd 2008, 42; SAIIA 2006; Team Consultancy 2005). Further-more, according to South African Institute of International Affairs’ s (SAIIA) analysis, important topics like international humanitarian law, child soldiers or press freedom are missing in the questionnaire and the role of civil society as an important aspect of good governance is not touched upon. It is therefore reasonable to suggested that the questionnaire

“should be reviewed and subsequently revised, taking into account the missing issues that are generic to the governance question in Africa. The APR Secretariat should assume leadership in the provision of guidance on the adoption of country specificities […]. Civil society should also be as-sessed. Thus, indicators and benchmarks targeted at this category of ac-tors should be included in the Questionnaire” (UNDP 2006, 24 f.).

This study turns to the content of the country report – determined largely by the questionnaire – in more detail in Chapter 4.

2.6 How to conduct an African peer review? – Stages of