Suchergebnisse

Many observers believe that multi-party democracy increasingly represents the inevitable future of governance around the world, including Africa. Some countries such as South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal have in fact made remarkable progress in instituting and moving toward consolidation of democratic systems. There has also been a history on the continent, however, of political systems that place de facto or de jure legal constraints on the ability of political parties to function. (...) There remains a current of underlying skepticism toward political parties, and arguments exist against multi-party politics. This paper identifies and explains five key arguments. It then critiques them and determines that while individual elements of these arguments may have some validity, the conclusion that is drawn, i.e.that party activity should be constrained, if not prohibited, is not consonant with democratic governance. The final section presents suggestions of how weaknesses in political party functioning could be addressed without placing limits on the ability of parties to play their legitimate role in a democratic political process. (AAS/DÜI)

AbstractMany observers believe that multi-party democracy increasingly represents the inevitable future of governance around the world, including Africa. Some countries such as South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, and Senegal have in fact made remarkable progress in instituting and moving toward consolidation of democratic systems. There has also been a history on the continent, however, of political systems that place de facto or de jure legal constraints on the ability of political parties to function. In fact, in recent years many African leaders have only grudgingly permitted multi-party politics under donor pressure. There remains a current of underlying skepticism toward political parties, and arguments exist against multi-party politics. This paper identifies and explains five key arguments. It then critiques them and determines that while individual elements of these arguments may have some validity, the conclusion that is drawn, i.e.that party activity should be constrained, if not prohibited, is not consonant with democratic governance. The final section presents suggestions of how weaknesses in political party functioning could be addressed without placing limits on the ability of parties to play their legitimate role in a democratic political process.

The focus of this article is on efforts undertaken within the United States government, especially the US Agency for International Development, to develop a coherent approach to determining the effectiveness of its democracy support programming. The main four priority areas are to support: civil society development; competitive political processes; the rule of law; and governance. The article begins by asking the question of why this issue is important. It then provides context, and briefly assesses varying perspectives and motivations of different stakeholders. It examines and critiques current approaches being taken to 'measure performance' and concludes by suggesting some potentially useful policy and research directions. These include instituting structural reforms to enhance the independence of the evaluation process, disaggregating approaches to assessing the impact of programming, focussing on priority countries, and expanding use of integrative methodologies.

SummaryPeer review mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review, rely upon traditional sovereign state diplomacy for contemporary human rights implementation. This article argues that this is a positive development for several reasons. First, at a theoretical level, it reveals an evolving maturity of the human rights regime through its capacity to detach from exclusively legalistic approaches to human rights implementation. Second, at a policy level, there is enough evidence of measured positive outcomes of peer review mechanisms to suggest a preference for more co-operative approaches to ensuring human rights compliance as a first and complementary step to other more controversial legal/adversarial means of implementation (such as the third pillar of the R2P concept). Finally, peer review mechanisms offer a theoretical and pragmatic framework conciliating between universalist and relativist conceptual approaches to human rights, accommodating and integrating views that call for compliance with international human rights law as well as those emphasizing respect for sovereignty.

The Universal Periodic Review Mechanism (UPR) of the UN Human Rights Council and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) reflect a growing trend in international organizations to utilize peer review processes to assess and improve member state governance and human rights performance. The two mechanisms are distinct in many ways. For example, the APRM undertakes a more in-depth and rigorous examination of a broader range of issues. Both review mechanisms, however, also have similarities e.g. they emphasize follow-up and actions to be taken as a result of the reviews and are products of a consensus decision-making process based on voluntary engagement. They represent an evolutionary process by which international norms can be integrated in a national context.