Skip Navigation



African Affairs Advance Access published online on April 10, 2006
African Affairs, doi:10.1093/afraf/adi124
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
105/420/333    most recent
adi124v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jordaan, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal African Society. All rights reserved

Article

Inadequately Self-Critical: Rwanda’s Self-Assessment for the African Peer Review Mechanism

Eduard Jordaan 1 *

1 Department of Political Science at the University of Stellenbosch

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eduard Jordaan, E-mail: ecj{at}sun.ac.za


  Abstract

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.