Grappling with Governance

The document examines the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as a voluntary self-monitoring tool for promoting good governance in Africa. It analyzes the process from the perspectives of civil society, journalists, and researchers, highlighting the gap between theoretical design and practical implementation. Key findings indicate that while the APRM has catalyzed dialogue and empowered some civil society actors, it often suffers from a lack of political will, poor coordination, and a disconnect between the diagnostic reports and the subsequent National Programmes of Action (NPoAs). The text emphasizes that the mechanism's success depends on the ability of civil society to demand accountability and the willingness of leaders to implement honest reforms.

• The APRM is a voluntary governance tool based on the premise that good governance is essential for Africa to overcome conflict, poverty, and marginalization. Participating states produce a Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) covering democracy, economic governance, corporate governance, and socio-economic development, which leads to a Country Review Report (CRR) and a National Programme of Action (NPoA).
• In practice, the APRM is a 'soft' process that lacks enforcement mechanisms or consequences for non-compliance, aiming for gradual cultural change rather than 'naming and shaming'.
• There is a significant discrepancy between formal governance structures and actual practice across early APRM countries, with the executive branch often dominating the legislature and judiciary despite official adherence to constitutionalism.
• National Programmes of Action (NPoAs) are often flawed, frequently ignoring the majority of recommendations made in the review reports and confusing the means of implementation with the desired ends.
• Civil society organizations (CSOs) are most active during the initial report compilation phase but are significantly less involved in the subsequent implementation and monitoring of the NPoAs.
• The technical process of producing reports is often burdensome and poorly coordinated, as seen in Kenya where the Lead Technical Agency faced role confusion and immense pressure to meet deadlines.

APA

Gruzd, S. (2010). Grappling with Governance. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/saia_boo_grappling_with_governance_intro_2010.pdf

Chicago

Gruzd, Steven. Grappling with Governance. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2010. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/saia_boo_grappling_with_governance_intro_2010.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Gruzd |first1=Steven |title=Grappling with Governance |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=2010 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/saia_boo_grappling_with_governance_intro_2010.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{gruzd2010grappling, author = {Gruzd, Steven}, title = {{Grappling with Governance}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2010}, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/saia_boo_grappling_with_governance_intro_2010.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }