State–Civil Society Relations: The Potential Contribution of the African Peer Review Mechanism

This policy briefing examines the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) within the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), arguing that the process can transform non-state actors from adversaries into governance partners. While the APRM mandates CSO inclusion in national assessments and governing structures, the author identifies significant challenges in maintaining momentum post-review and ensuring the quality of representation. The document provides recommendations for governments to involve CSOs in the implementation phase and for CSOs to leverage their exposure to state dynamics for sustained policy dialogue.

• The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) integrates civil society organisations (CSOs) into its governance and assessment processes to foster national ownership of development and governance efforts. CSOs are included in the National Governing Council/Commission (NGC), which supervises national assessments and prepares the preliminary Country Self-Assessment Report, leading to the final Country Review Report (CRR) and the National Programme of Action (NPoA).
• The APRM has the potential to shift the traditionally tense relationship between African states and CSOs, moving them toward a partnership. In Lesotho and Mozambique, CSOs and religious institutions played key roles in peace-building and democratic transitions in the 1990s, and more recently in national reconciliation efforts. In Maseru, stakeholders attributed increased government attendance at national NGO conferences to the APRM.
• Despite mandated inclusion, the effectiveness of CSO participation in the APRM is often undermined by several factors. These include governments exercising disproportionate influence through funding, the selection of politically-aligned or compliant CSO representatives, and the appointment of representatives who lack genuine mandates from their constituencies. Additionally, CSOs often struggle to commit leadership time to the long-term process.
• A significant challenge is the decline of interest and momentum in the APRM after the publication of the Country Review Report (CRR). This 'low-profile' post-review period is characterized by the disbanding or marginalization of NGCs, a lack of resources to publicise findings, and the technical nature of implementation and monitoring, which typically remains the sole remit of the state.
• The APRM has demonstrated that constructive national dialogue can occur without threatening the state and that African leaders are open to discussing governance challenges and learning from one another. This has led to the emergence of 'African solutions to African problems' and a shift where citizens are increasingly viewed as 'peers' in national policy discussions.
• The document recommends that governments nurture APRM partnerships by involving CSOs in the implementation phase, specifically in reporting progress and monitoring and evaluation. It also suggests including CSO representatives in continental dialogues. For CSOs, the author recommends initiating research into post-review involvement, developing innovative strategies to publicise findings, and exploring cross-national peer learning.

APA

Petlane, T. (2013). State–Civil Society Relations: The Potential Contribution of the African Peer Review Mechanism. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Policy-Briefing-80.pdf

Chicago

Petlane, Tšoeu. State–Civil Society Relations: The Potential Contribution of the African Peer Review Mechanism. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2013. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Policy-Briefing-80.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Petlane |first1=Tšoeu |title=State–Civil Society Relations: The Potential Contribution of the African Peer Review Mechanism |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=December 2013 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Policy-Briefing-80.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{petlane2013statecivil, author = {Petlane, Tšoeu}, title = {{State–Civil Society Relations: The Potential Contribution of the African Peer Review Mechanism}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2013}, month = dec, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Policy-Briefing-80.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }