African Affairs Advance Access originally published online on April 10, 2006
African Affairs 2006 105(420):333-351; doi:10.1093/afraf/adi124
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inadequately self-critical: Rwanda’s self-assessment for the African peer review mechanism
Eduard Jordaan is a Researcher in the Department of Political Science at the University of Stellenbosch.
During the first stage of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) peer review process, the country under review compiles a report on the state of economic, political, social, and corporate governance in the country. This article examines Rwanda’s evaluation of its political governance during this first stage, as reflected in the January 2005 version of this country’s self-assessment report. After sketching the compromised political environment in which the report was written, it is indicated how this rosy report inadequately addresses a number of serious political problems in Rwanda, such as Rwanda’s involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the inadequate separation of powers in the Rwandan political system, tensions in Rwandan society, and the flawed presidential and parliamentary elections of 2003. While it remains to be seen to what extent Rwanda either acknowledges its political problems in the final version of its self-assessment report, or is censured in the subsequent stages of the peer review process, it is concluded that the greater the failure to do either, the greater the doubt that will linger over the value of the African peer-review exercise.
1. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Memorandum of understanding on the African Peer Review Mechanism’ (http://www.nepad.org, 17 July, 2005).
2. P. Chabal, ‘The quest for good government and development in Africa: is NEPAD the answer?’ International Affairs 78, 3 (2002), pp. 447–62; I. Taylor, NEPAD: Towards Africa’s development or another false start? (Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO, 2005).
3. See Taylor, NEPAD, pp. 15–44.
4. On this problem, see ibid, pp. 61–74.
5. M. Katzenellenbogen and W. Hartley, ‘No political peer review, says Mbeki’, Business Day, 31 October, 2002.
6. T. Mbeki, ‘Critics ill-informed about NEPAD peer review’, ANC Official Home Page (http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2002/at45.htm, 27 July, 2005).
8. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, Rwanda Country Self-Assessment Report for the African Peer Review Mechanism (Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, Kigali, 2005). The 230-page report consists of an introduction, followed by four chapters, each addressing one of the thematic areas set out in the questionnaire.
9. On Kigali’s ‘official line’, see J. Pottier, Re-imagining Rwanda: Conflict, survival and disinformation in the late twentieth century (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002).
10. During the second stage of the peer review process, the country visit by the Country Review Team, this team’s ‘priority order of business will be to carry out the widest possible range of consultations with the Government, officials, political parties, parliamentarians and representatives of civil society organizations including the media, academia, trade unions, business and professional bodies’: NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Guidelines for countries to prepare for and to participate in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM)’, NEPAD Official Home Page (http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/aprm/aprmguidelinesforcountryreview200104final.pdf, 27 July, 2005). Never mind that ‘representatives of civil society organizations’ in Rwanda tend to be not all that independent from the government, the NEPAD documents make no mention of possible consultations with embassy staff, the UN and its agencies, international financial instutions, international church groups and international NGOs — groups that would be able to broaden the perspectives of the Country Review Team.
11. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Declaration on democracy, political, economic, and corporate governance’, NEPAD Official Home Page (http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/documents/2.pdf, 15 July, 2005).
12. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) base document’, NEPAD Official Home Page (http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/documents/49.pdf, 22 July, 2005).
13. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Guidelines’.
14. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Country self-assessment for the African Peer Review Mechanism’, NEPAD Official Home Page (http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/documents/156.pdf, 24 January, 2005).
17. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘APRM base document’.
18. According to Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘APRM National Commission’, Rwanda NEPAD Magazine 1 (2004), pp. 14–16.
20. NEPAD Secretariat, Final Report: African Peer Review Mechanism country support mission to Rwanda, 21–June 24, 2004 (NEPAD Secratariat, Midrand, 2004), p. 4.
22. On the extent of presidential and senatorial appointments, see Government of Rwanda, The Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda (Official Gazette of the Republic of Rwanda, Kigali, 2003), Articles 88 and 113.
23. In May 2003, Pro-Femmes sided with the government and attacked Human Rights Watch for being ‘divisive’: United States Department of State, ‘Rwanda: country report on human rights practices 2003’, US Department of State Official Home Page (http://www.state.gov//g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27744.htm, 27 January, 2005).
24. They were Aimable Kabanda (African Peer Review Focal Point, Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat), Alex Semarintoya (Ministry of Local Government), Solange Tuyisenge (Member of the National Assembly) and James Ngango (Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
25. US Department of State, ‘Country Report 2003’; United States Department of State, ‘Rwanda: country report on human rights practices 2004’, US Department of State Official Home Page (http://www.state.gov//g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41621.htm, 23 July, 2005).
26. Amnesty International, ‘Rwanda: human rights organization forced to close down’, Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR470012005, 22 January, 2005); Human Rights Watch, ‘Rwanda: preparing for elections: tightening control in the name of unity’, Human Right Watch Official Home Page (http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/rwanda0503.bck.htm, 9 February, 2005).
27. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Declaration’, op. cit.
28. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Communiqué: The African Peer Review (APRM) support mission to Rwanda’, Southern African Regional Poverty Network Official Home Page (http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000845/P958-Rwanda_APRM.pdf, 31 July, 2005).
29. Nepad Secretariat, ‘Country self-assessment’.
30. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Self-assessment report’, p. 26.
31. See Human Rights Watch, ‘Rwanda: observing the rules of war?’ Human Rights Watch Official Home Page (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/rwanda2, 15 February, 2005).
32. See Amnesty International, ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: killing human decency’, Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR620072000, 9 February, 2005); Amnesty International, ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: Rwandese-controlled east: devastating human toll’, Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR620112001, 19 July, 2005); Human Rights Watch, ‘Observing the rules of war?’
33. Amnesty International, ‘Democratic Republic of the Congo: "Our brothers who help kill us" — economic exploitation and human rights abuses in the east’, Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR620102003, 19 July, 2005).
34. T. Longman, ‘The complex reasons for Rwanda’s engagement in Congo’, in J.F. Clark (ed.), The African Stakes of the Congo War (Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2002), p. 136.
35. Government of Rwanda, ‘Reply to the final report (document S/2002/1146) of the Panel of Experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo’ (http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Rwanda/documents/reply_un_resources_2002.htm, 15 June, 2005).
36. Amnesty International, ‘Our brothers who help kill us’.
37. United Nations, ‘Final report of the panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’, United Nations in Denmark Official Home Page (http://www.un.dk/doc/S20021146.pdf, 10 February, 2005). See also Amnesty International, ‘Our brother who help kill us’.
38. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Self-assessment report’, pp. 34–5.
39. Amnesty International, ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: Arming the east’, Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR620062005, 14 July, 2005).
40. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Self-assessment report’, p. 25.
41. Amnesty International, ‘Arming the East’.
42. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Country self-assessment’.
43. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Self-assessment report’, p. 36.
44. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Country self-assessment’.
45. US Department of State, ‘Country report 2003’; US Department of State, ‘Country report 2004’.
46. F. Reyntjens, ‘Rwanda, ten years on: from genocide to dictatorship’, African Affairs 103, 411 (2004), p. 187.
47. Pottier, Re-imagining Rwanda, p. 9.
48. US Department of State, ‘Country report 2003’.
49. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Country self-assessment’.
50. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Self-assessment report’, p. 31.
51. National Electoral Commission, ‘Executive summaries of National Electoral Commission reports on the constitutional referendum, presidential and parliamentary elections’, National Electoral Commission of Rwanda Offical Home Page (http://www.comelena.gov.rw/english/resumeelection2003.html, 18 July, 2005).
52. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Self-assessment report’, p. 31.
53. US Department of State, ‘Country report 2003’.
54. European Union Electoral Observer Mission, ‘Final report 2003’, EU Official Home Page (http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/rwanda/moe_ue_final_2003.pdf, 25 July, 2005).
55. During the presidential elections (August 2003), the incumbent, Paul Kagame, won 95 percent of the vote, while his party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), won 74 percent of the vote in the parliamentary elections (September 2003).
57. Amnesty International, ‘Rwanda: government slams door on political life and civil society’, Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR470122004, 22 January, 2005); US Department of State, ‘Country report 2003’.
56. The US Department of State referred to the 2003 presidential elections as ‘seriously marred’: US Department of State, ‘Country report 2003’.
58. Amnesty International, ‘Government slams door’; Amnesty International, ‘Rwanda: run-up to presidential elections marred by threats and harassment’, Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR470102003, 22 January, 2005); I. Samset and O. Dalby, ‘Rwanda: presidential and parliamentary elections 2003’, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights Official Home Page (http://www.humanrights.uio.no/forskning/publ/nr/2003/12.pdf, 28 February, 2005).
59. Human Rights Watch, ‘Rwanda: resolve disappearances, assassination’, Human Right Watch Official Home Page (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/05/04/rwanda133.htm, 9 February, 2005).
60. Amnesty International, ‘Rwanda: deeper into the abyss — waging war on civil society’ Amnesty International Official Home Page (http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAFR470132004, 22 January 2005); Human Rights Watch, ‘Preparing for elections’.
61. Human Rights Watch, ‘Preparing for elections’.
62. US Department of State, ‘Country report 2003’.
63. Human Rights Watch, ‘Preparing for elections’.
64. Samset and Dalby, ‘Presidential and parliamentary elections’.
65. EU Electoral Observer Mission, ‘Final report 2003’.
66. Samset and Dalby, ‘Presidential and parliamentary elections’.
67. US Department of State, ‘Country report 2003’.
68. EU Electoral Observer Mission, ‘Final report’.
69. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Country self-assessment’.
70. Rwanda NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Self-assessment report’, pp. 34–5.
71. US Department of State, ‘Country report 2004’.
72. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Country self-assessment’, emphasis added.
73. Amnesty International, ‘Devastating human toll’ (http://web.amnesty.org, 19 July, 2005).
74. As had happened during the previous year, as during 2004 Rwanda’s judiciary ‘was subject to presidential influence’: US Department of State, ‘Country report 2004’.
75. N. van de Walle, African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis, 1979–1999 (Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 51.
76. On this tension, see Chabal, ‘Good government and development in Africa’; Taylor, NEPAD.
77. NEPAD Secretariat, ‘Communiqué issued at the end of the third summit of the Committee of Participating Heads of State and Government in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APR Forum), 19 June, 2005, Abuja, Nigeria’, Institute for Security Studies Official Home Page (http://www.iss.co.za/AF/RegOrg/nepad/aprm/comsum3jun05.pdf, 28 July, 2005).
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. Bromley After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness?: Cultural Representations of Reconciliation in Rwanda French Cultural Studies, May 1, 2009; 20(2): 181 - 197. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|