The twenty African countries included in the Afrobarometer include many of the most politically liberal countries on the continent, including seven countries ranked by Freedom House in 2008 as ‘free’. However, when one assesses the quality of these regimes based on popular attitudes and perceptions, one does not find any consolidated democracies among them (although Botswana comes close). In fact, some are consolidating as autocracies, but most countries are best understood as unconsolidated, hybrid regimes. They exhibit some key elements of democracy, such as regular elections and protection of core individual freedoms. But either the popular demand for democracy, or the perceived supply of democracy, or, in most cases, both, fall short of the standards of full democracy. But the trajectories of individual countries are extremely diverse, with some exhibiting sharp declines away from democratic consolidation, while others are steadily advancing.
Governance and participation in health
In Turkey, Brazil and Egypt, thousands have taken to the streets to voice their anger and frustration at the lack of social and economic justice in their countries. The author of this article argues this public unrest is directly linked to the wholesale adoption of neoliberal economic policies by these countries’ governments, which has led to social inequality. He argues that, despite mainstream perceptions, free markets don't automatically regulate themselves nor do they naturally respect individual or community rights. And while the power of transnational corporations has expanded exponentially to eclipse governments of small countries, income and wealth disparities have widened. But despite the grave warnings from civil society, governments and financial institutions continue to privatise services when they should be focusing on how to make the public sector fit for purpose. Political leaders and captains of industry have subjected ordinary people to double burdens of paying taxes to the state and paying profit-adjusted higher costs for privatised services like health, education and public transport, despite these services being part of the social contract between citizens and the state.
This book builds on eight case studies, all loosely involving financial networks such as the G20, several written by network insiders, to try and sort out whether networks are a blessing or a curse for developing countries. The contributors ask a number of questions: Are networks exciting new avenues for poor country governments and civil society to influence the big decisions, or sneaky ways to get round accountability and exclude the population through a 21st century version of invitation-only gentleman’s clubs? Will they replace or strengthen formal international institutions like the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund? Are North-South networks different from South-South ones? (both are proliferating). The book sets out five functions of networks: agenda setting; consensus building; policy coordination; knowledge exchange and production and norm-setting and diffusion. It identifies two categories of network. Advocacy networks aim to mobilise support for a cause and concentrate on the agenda-setting, norm-setting and consensus-building functions, while ‘self-help’ or ‘problem-sharing’ networks focus on improving members’ capacities through knowledge production and exchange and policy coordination.
The democratic legitimacy of transnational arrangements for global health is contested. The traditional United Nations’ body for health, the World Health Organization (WHO), is subject to severe criticism regarding its focus, effectiveness, and independence from country specific, and private sector interests. It is confronted by budget cuts and a fundamental reorganization. Other major actors, such as the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), Global Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (hereafter The Gates), make significant contributions to international health projects, but they can be criticized for not being representative and accountable. The global health landscape in general has become an intransparent patchwork of organizations and interests, where objectives of public health, development, economy, security, and foreign policy dominate to various degrees, and sometimes clash. This paper discusses the principal arrangements for transnational governance in the area of global health, and analyses their democratic legitimacy using five different prisms: (1) representation; (2)accountability; (3) transparency; (4) effectiveness; and (5) deliberation.
The Global Initiative on AIDS, Inc. and the Global Initiative on AIDS in Africa is calling on African journalists, writers, physicians, scientists, researchers, health care providers, grassroots activists and citizens in general who are involved on every level of the struggle against HIV/AIDS in African and throughout the Diaspora to submit articles, issues, opinions, research findings, and news about HIV/AIDS related matters. GIAA will publish "The Voice of the People," An International Journal Chronicling the Battle Against HIV/AIDS from the Perspective of Africans, African-Americans, African-Carribeans and Africans Around the World. Anyone interested in submitting articles and/or contributing to this effort should contact Angele Kwemo or Patricia Okolo.
Uganda’s parliament passed the Public Order Management bill, which gives Ugandan police broad powers to permit or disallow any “public meeting”. The law defines a public meeting as any gathering of more than three people in any public place where the “failure of any government, political party, or political organisation” is discussed. This definition includes peaceful demonstrations of more than three people, and organisers would be required to inform police in advance or face criminal sanction. The law allows police to use force – including, in several instances, firearms – no matter what the alleged offense. The Bill has been passed to the President to gazette into law.
With the current World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General’s term of office ending in June 2012, WHO members have set up a drafting group to try to reconcile divergent views on the process leading to the election. At the WHO Executive Board meeting, which ran from 17-25 January 2011, some countries were in favour of geographical rotation, citing over 60 years of no representation from their regions, while others objected that rotation should not override more important selection criteria such as expertise and experience, as it could endanger the organisation’s future. A draft resolution on the rules of procedure for the appointment of the WHO Director-General (DG) was proposed by Burundi on behalf of the member states of the African region, asking for the Executive Board to approve the principle of geographical rotation of the post of DG among the six regions of WHO, namely Africa, the Americas, South-East Asia, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Western Pacific. In this draft resolution, Burundi stressed the need for further strengthening of guarantees of transparency and equity among the six geographical regions of the WHO in the process of nominating and appointing the DG. The proposed document stirred a debate that some countries said has been on the table since 2006.
The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) Steering Committee has approved the creation of a CSO-led working group to discuss application of the IATI standard to the work of civil society organisations (CSOs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or not-for-profit organisations. Building on the Accra Agenda for Action and IATI outcomes to date, the working group will examine the IATI standard in the light of existing CSO and NGO accountability frameworks and self-regulatory mechanisms. It will take into account the particular characteristics of CSOs and NGOs as development and humanitarian assistance actors, as well as the different operating environments that shape CSO responses to demands for greater accountability and transparency. The working group’s primary objective is to encourage the participation of civil society and not-for-profit actors in IATI by developing practical proposals on guidelines and tools to assist CSOs who wish to publish IATI-compatible data. Early priorities include the identification of information that is already being shared or could be reported by CSOs in the short- and medium-term and the development of protocols for exclusions of data where appropriate on privacy or security grounds.
Zambian civil society fears the imminent introduction of legislation designed to regulate non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that may compromise their independence and even result in a clampdown on their operations. The new 2009 NGO Bill calls for ‘the registration and co-ordination of NGOs, to regulate the work, and the area of work, of NGOs operating in Zambia.’ If the bill becomes law, a 16-member board will be established by the community development minister to ‘receive, discuss and approve the code of conduct [of NGOs], and ... provide policy guidelines to NGOs for harmonising their activities to the national development plan of Zambia.’ NGOs will be compelled to re-register every five years and submit annual information on their activities, funders, accounts and the personal wealth of their officials – failure to comply could result in the suspension or cancellation of registration. However, civil society leaders and human rights activists fear the proposed new law could be used by government to silence critics and erode civil society.
In many countries, international NGOs have replaced traditional western donors and absentee states' influence by providing services that are traditionally the responsibility of the home governments. The growing trend is for international NGOs wield increasing power and resources in fragile states or so-called ‘failed states’. Western countries prefer to route donor funds through international NGOs rather than national governments, which are perceived as corrupt, bureaucratic or incompetent. The amount of aid flowing through NGOs in Africa rather than governments has more than tripled.