7th APPG Report: Democracy and Development in Africa

Call for Evidence

The Africa All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) is calling for evidence on a report looking at “Democracy and Development in Africa.” 

The report will examine the relationship between development, democracy and human rights, and the impact they have upon each other.  We seek to analyse the UK’s role in promoting democracy and human rights in Africa, including both from an African perspective and in the light of Chinese and other “new” donors, in order to further our understanding of the role the West can play in honouring its commitments to both democracy and development. 

This report addresses some of the fundamental questions underlying the UK’s work in Africa, and is particularly timely with the coming G8 Summit in London next year, and the approaching target date of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  The APPG will submit this report to the Government, and would expect the Government to respond as they have to previous APPG reports.

Please see terms of reference for the report in the post below, submissions should address one or more of those questions.  Submissions can be made by 1^st December 2012 via e-mail to john.blow@parliament.uk or by post to Africa All Party Parliamentary Group, 39 Upper Committee Corridor North, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, UK.  Submissions should be brief and any submissions of more than six pages long should inlcude a table of contents.

The deadline for the receipt of written evidence is 1st December 2012.

We are happy to provide further information; please address any enquiries to john.blow@parliament.uk. 

We very much look forward to hearing from you.  

Africa All Party Parliamentary Group

Terms of Reference for Africa APPG’S 7th Inquiry: Democracy & Development in Africa

“There is no direct relationship between democracy and growth” – the late Meles Zenawi, Ethiopian PM, at the World Economic Forum in Addis Adaba earlier this year. The record of less than democratic states in meeting development targets suggests this might contain some truth; in some cases at least, the governments that deliver “development” – in the form of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) - to their people are not the most democratic.  Yet, the current Western model assumes that participation of citizens is essential to development, and the promotion of democracy, defined by the FCO as

“more than just elections - it is acceptance for the principles of equity, participation, transparency and accountability. It is respect for human rights and the rule of law”,

underlies much of western development and foreign policy.  Importantly these principles are increasingly being seen as a necessary condition for UK and EU aid and assistance to foreign, and in particular African, countries.

 

Have we got this one right? How strong is the evidence that democratic values and practice promote development? Or what other benefits does democracy accrue? How effective can western donors be in promoting democracy and human rights in Africa anyway?  Is it possible to have development without human rights and democracy? What examples are there of real development under dictatorships? Or of democracies seeing little development? How do Africans feel about the conditions placed on aid? How does UK aid conditionality compare to other donors, both western and non-western? What impact does Chinese (and other “value free”) support have on the West’s ability to promote democracy and good governance in Africa?  How is this likely to play out over the next few decades?

 

The consequences for UK development policy are stark: if there is no evidence of a link between democracy and development, questions are raised about the purpose of UK work in this area, and whether efforts to promote democracy meet the conditions of the International Development Act 2002, which requires aid to contribute to poverty reduction.  If democracy is indeed critical to development, then the UK needs to consider carefully whether all the countries it favours are genuinely willing to engage on these issues. In cases where commitment to democracy is little more than rhetoric but development targets are being met, would HMG reconsider its support? Where intentions are good, how can we better work with institutions and communities to ensure governments are held to account?   

 

The APPG aims to investigate these issues with a particular focus on the implications for UK policy.

We seek factual evidence and points of view on:

 

1) The role the various facets of democracy – equity, participation, transparency, accountability, human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and association and freedom of the press - have played in promoting development around the world:-

- In Europe

- In Africa

- Elsewhere in the world,

and the ways in which development has impacted on democracy and human rights.

 

2) To what extent progress on democracy and human rights in Africa can be ascribed to western assistance, conditionality or diplomatic pressure and to what extent this is internally driven

 

3) What priority Africans, both citizens and those in government, ascribe to democracy and human rights, and what their feelings are towards aid conditionality.

 

4) To what extent aid and investment from China and other “new donors” is truly free of conditions, and what impact the new donors have on human rights and democracy, and on development.

 

5) How Chinese and other “value-free” aid and investment impacts on western efforts to promote democracy and human rights in Africa, and specifically the willingness of Africans to accept conditional forms of aid.

 

6) Trends in conditionality in both aid and other forms of engagement, including comparisons of recipient countries in terms of their economic and strategic importance to the UK and their human rights and democratic records. 

 

7)  The implications of these issues for UK policy, including the countries and models of development the UK should work with, and if and how to improve the UK’s support to democracy, accountability and human rights in Africa.

 

NEWS: Africa APPG questions DFID’s choice of aid priorities

NEWS RELEASE

From: Africa All Party Parliamentary Group, Houses of Parliament

 

All Party Group of MPs and Peers question Government’s choice of countries to receive UK aid

 

The Africa All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)², a cross-party group of almost 90 MPs and Peers, questions the Government’s selection of countries to receive aid, in a report released today (Monday 2 January) entitled “DFID’s Aid Priorities and Africa”¹.  The report analyses the Government’s Bilateral Aid Review (BAR) published in 2011, which led the Department for International Development (DFID) to reduce the number of countries it operates in from 43 in 2008/9 to 27 by 2016.

 

The  cross party group concludes that the premise that DFID should operate more effectively in fewer countries is sensible, but the lack of objective criteria, the poor quality of some of the information used to select focus countries, and the lack of transparency of the process, mean the countries selected to receive aid are not the optimum choices.  The report also discusses the implications of the BAR for how UK aid should be spent in Africa.

 

The Africa APPG developed three alternative versions of the Government’s Needs-Effectiveness Index, which was used in the BAR to rank countries according to their need for development assistance, and its likely effectiveness.  When the poverty rate (% living on less than $2 a day) is used instead of the poverty number (number living on less than $2 a day), a systematic bias towards larger countries in the Government’s index is removed, and the countries highlighted as priorities change considerably.  In particular Burundi, which was excluded from UK bilateral aid following the BAR, would rank as the number one priority for UK aid under two of the three alternative indices.

 

Hugh Bayley MP, Chair of the Group, says, “Burundi is a small, extremely poor, fragile country recovering from decades of civil war.  It is highly dependent on aid and its stability has serious consequences for neighbouring countries which receive hundreds of millions of pounds of British aid”. 

 

The Africa APPG therefore recommends that DFID retains a bilateral aid programme in Burundi.  This echoes the recommendations of a recent House of Commons International Development Select Committee report calling for DFID’s aid programme in Burundi to be re-instated³, to which the Government will respond early in the new year.    

 

The report also discusses the implications of the BAR for DFID’s work in Africa.  In particular it highlights:-

 

-          The risk of prioritising easy wins over tasks that are more complex, longer term, or have a higher risk of failure, in order to meet targets and show value for money, and recommends that DFID must find a better balance between short and long term results, and continue to address complex issues such as the capacity of governments to manage budgets and human capital development.

-          The importance of ensuring accountability to local communities and their elected representatives in national Parliaments, as well as to donors.

-          In cases where a DFID country programme fails to achieve its expected outcomes, the importance of assessing the reasons why it did not deliver, considering how to prevent this being repeated and seeking alternative mechanisms to deliver aid to the country’s population.

 

The UK spent £4254 million on bilateral assistance in 2010/11, but this figure is set to increase as the UK meets its commitment of spending 0.7% of Gross National Income on Official Development Assistance (ODA) by 2013/14. 

Hugh Bayley MP, Chair of the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group, says:

“The basic premise of the Bilateral Aid Review, that reducing the number of British bilateral programmes will reduce administrative overheads and improve aid effectiveness, is reasonable. The results, such as the closure of DFID offices in countries where the UK has little comparative advantage, like Niger, or in countries which no longer have a significant development needs, such as Kosovo and Vietnam, are generally sensible.  However we have reservations about how the Review was carried out, which have implications for some of the decisions made. 

The review favoured countries with large populations.  There is no evidence to suggest that aid will be more effective in such countries and no convincing moral argument for doing more to aid poor people in large countries than poor people in small countries.  In particular we disagree with the decision to close DFID’s bilateral programme in Burundi.  If the bias towards large countries is removed from DFID’s Needs-Effectiveness Index, Burundi ranks as the most needy country.  Had fairer criteria been used in the Government’s review, DFID’s programme in Burundi would not have been selected for closure.”

ENDS

 

Notes to Editors:

 

1. A copy of the  Africa APPG’s report “DFID’s Aid Priorities and Africa” is attached.

 

2. Administration of the Africa APPG is kindly provided by the Royal African Society:http://www.royalafricansociety.org/

 

3.  The International Development Committee’s report can be read at:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmintdev/1134/113402.htm  

 

 

HB/VC

For more information:

Please contact the APPG at victoria.crawford@parliament.uk or 0207 219 2485

Welcome to the new Africa APPG website

The Africa APPG was launched in January 2003 by Hugh Bayley MP and Lord Lea of Crondall to focus on issues which affect Africa as a continent and to raise the profile of Africa and its development in Parliament. The Group has been at the centre of the increased interest in Africa in Westminster and Whitehall over the last five years.

The Africa APPG holds regular meetings and briefings with high profile speakers, encourages debate within the Houses of Parliament and publishes regular reports on specific issues affecting the continent. Recent reports include Land in Zimbabwe: Past Mistakes, Future Prospects and Security and Africa: Submission to the 2010 Strategic Defense and Security Review.

For more information about the Africa APPG please contact the group’s research coordinator Victoria Crawford on victoria.crawford@parliament.uk 

The administration of the Africa APPG is provided by the Royal African Society. For more information about the Royal African Society please visit their website www.royalafricansociety.org

(The photo of the Palace of Westminser is by trodel and it’s used under licence.)