Amid the ceremony and fanfare that characterised
the launch of the Pan-African Parliament
(PAP) in March 2003, there were critical voices
that cautioned Africans not to expect miracles.
The questions relate to the difference the continental
assembly would make in promoting
democracy and human rights, given its self-proclaimed
role in this regard. To what extent might
the parliament manage to twist the arms of heads
of state to deal with a range of challenges facing
the continent? Of what practical value would the
parliament be to ordinary Africans tired of wars
and those struggling to free themselves from the
yoke of dictatorship in various parts of the continent?
While it would not be fair to expect the
parliament to deal with all these issues in a year,
it is important to ask whether the 3rd ordinary
session of the continental assembly was a step
towards answering some these questions.
The session opened on 29th March 2005 on a
celebratory note. This session took place shortly
after the first birthday of the continental assembly.
For Ambassador Gertrude Mungella, PAP’s
President, the session was an important opportunity
for the parliamentarians to ‘take stock
of the progress and to reflect on the challenges
faced’ during the first year of PAP’s existence. As
for progress, she highlighted PAP’s achievements during its first year, namely:
The adoption of the parliament’s Rules of
Procedure
The establishment of the body’s 10 working
committees
The appointment of the parliament’s interim
clerk and two deputies
The development of the body’s work plans
Advocacy work by the bureau to popularise
the work of the parliament
The sending of a fact finding mission to
Darfur
Quite clearly, these achievements reflect an
organisation in its infancy, being more administrative
and operational than substantive. It is for
that reason that the President described PAP’s
current situation as the ‘first teeth’ of a child.
To its credit, it was clear that this session
was different from previous ones, which consisted
mainly of fanfare and ceremony. Unlike in
September when President Thabo Mbeki officially
opened the second session of the parliament,
the first in the assembly’s permanent home, the
highest official from the South African government
was the speaker of the National Assembly,
Mss Baleka Bethe who urged PAP to be more
than a talk shop. If one agrees that the parliament
needed to start dealing with real issues, it is
therefore important to recall that PAP is, among
others, expected to:
Promote the principles of human rights and
democracy in Africa
Encourage good governance transparency and
accountability in member states
Promote peace and stability
Accordingly, the session began on a realistic note,
asking questions about the financial sustainability
of the continental parliament. The crisp question the parliamentarians had to grapple with
was: what can PAP achieve with the budget of
US$5.6 million that the AU Executive Council
of Ministers had approved for the parliament?
This budget should, in fact, be understood in
the context of the ambitious US$21 million
that President Mungella first proposed to the
AU Assembly in Addis Ababa last July. Taking
this, and the proposal by the AU Chairman
during the same meeting of US$10 million into
consideration, it was understandable that almost
all parliamentarians took the view that the
US$5.6 million was insufficient. The proposal by
the PAP President that parliamentarians should
consider the creation of a trust fund dedicated to
the work of PAP, came against the backdrop of a
number of suggestions (made during the 2nd session)
which included possible levies on African
airlines and a range of other unrealistic plans.
Unsurprisingly, the idea of the levies received
overwhelming support from the house and was
swiftly adopted. This was among the decisions
highlighted by President Mungella at the close
of the session as one of the important resolutions
that the 3rd session had taken.
The fact that PAP parliamentarians had, by
the close of the session, themselves already
contributed about US$1,900 to the fund, was
hailed by the President as an indicator of the
seriousness with which the parliamentarians took
PAP. It is, however, important to note that there
are many potential indicators of seriousness
beyond writing a cheque. The fact that when the
house was adjourned on 11th April there were
only about 100 parliamentarians left (of a total
of XXX) could be another indicator. The parliamentarians
that crammed the house during the
official opening had either disappeared into thin
air or joined shoppers at some of Johannesburg’s
tempting malls.
Less than 20 of the 53 AU member states are
able to pay their dues to the AU and the stark
reality is that very few countries on the continent
have hitherto demonstrated the political and
material commitment to PAP shown by South
Africa. Against this background, one must be
cautiously optimistic about the success of the
newly created PAP trust fund. Moreover, the
parliament itself does not seem to be clear on
what it needs the money for at this stage. Most
emphasis has so far been made on administrative
and protocol funding needs. PAP needs to outline
its funding needs on the basis of a substantive
programme of action; or else no one will be
interested in funding it.
Funding issues aside, the parliamentarians did
discuss, though very generally, a range of substantive
issues, and the secretariat of the house
deserves credit for crafting the unstructured
discussions into adoptable resolutions and recommendations.
The most interesting part, while observing
the deliberations, was when the debate seemed
to lead to a point where the house would be
compelled to take a firmer stand against wayward
African governments. At these times, parliamentarians
would hasten to craft a resolution that
did not ruffle feathers. A good example of this
was when PAP resolved to reiterate its call for
more states to accede to the African Peer Review
Mechanism (APRM). Realising that since last
September not a single country had heeded this
call, all the 3rd session of PAP could do was reiterate
its call. The question is: come the 4th session,
are we going to witness another reiteration?
The session also made a recommendation
that called on the African Union to formulate
a ‘continental Code of Conduct on the use
and exploitation of the natural resources’. In
making this call, PAP was adding its own voice
to a number of others that have made similar
calls. Recently, the Commission for Africa said
the same thing. NEPAD also envisages similar
accountability frameworks on the continent.
The challenge, though, will be how to ensure
that the AU acts on this matter. Technically,
PAP resolutions have no legal status. They are
nothing more than recommendations to other
AU structures, particularly to Heads of State,
without whose approval or support no action
can be taken on a single PAP resolution. Against
this background, it is hard to imagine what PAP
can practically deliver, except perhaps playing an
advocacy role.
One of the easiest decisions, and one to which
all parliamentarians together rallied, was the
resolution thanking ‘all African Heads of State
and in particular to the incumbent President of
the African Union’ for the intervention made by
the AU when Faure Gnassingbe stepped into the
Togolese presidency unconstitutionally, following
the death of his father, President Gnassingbe
Eyadema. Essentially, PAP’s support for the AU
and its chairman is an affirmation of the principle
of the rule of law, and is very much in line
with the Lomé Declaration, which expresses the
‘condemnation of all types of unconstitutional
change of Government as anachronistic and in
contradiction … to the promotion of democratic
principles and constitutional rule’. Principled
pronouncements aside, observers are still keen on
how the AU will help Togo return to normalcy
following the destruction triggered by the disputed
election results. As for PAP, it could have,
but did not send an observer mission to assess the
situation ahead of or during the elections.
It would appear that PAP has by now worked
out its contribution to conflict resolution. The
session resolved to send peace missions to countries
experiencing conflict such as Côte d’Ivoire
and the DRC. This follows its decision in 2004
to send a mission to Darfur. One of the things
that attracted the attention of observers was
what the 3rd session would resolve, following the
observations its mission had made in Darfur. In
this regard, the session, resolved that:
The political negotiations in Abuja, which are
designed to establish a democratic culture in
Darfur that can guarantee the population a
fair share of power and resources, should both
be accelerated and time bound.
The term of the agreement incorporates periodic
consultation with all stakeholders in
Sudanese Society to ensure that no group is
excluded or marginalised in the sharing of
power and resources.
The mandate of the AU Mission should be
enhanced to go beyond Cease Fire Monitoring
to include protection of the population in
Darfur.
On closer inspection, PAP’s strategy on conflict
resolution seems to comply with traditional
approaches, that is, send a fact-finding group
to report back to the parliament. Key to PAP’s
approach is the principle of inclusion, listening
to all parties and calling for an inclusive dialogue
and plan. However, expectations of what
PAP can contribute to conflict resolution on
the continent should not be unrealistic. Other
than helping to create a dialogue and making
recommendations to others, who have the power
to act or not, there is very little the continental
assemble can practically do.
The session also adopted a range of well-meaning
but unrealistic resolutions geared towards the
improvement of the socio-economic situation of
ordinary Africans. Key among them is the call
for the AU to investigate ‘the viability of harmonising
and the establishment of an African Land
Title System’ as well the need for the AU, in conjunction
with the private sector, to establish ‘Pan-
African Investment and Financing Institutions
for the continent’s Rural Economy.’ At best,
these resolutions demonstrate that the parliamentarians
are well aware of the developmental
challenges facing the continent. However, the
discussions leading to these resolutions tended
to be theoretical than practical. Where would
the AU find the necessary resources needed to
establish financial institutions? Nobody cared to
clarify. The call for the private sector to partner
with the AU does not seem to make realistic
sense. That the private sector in Africa is (usually)
a shambles is no secret.
The debate on land was vibrant. The call for
African states to tilt the scale of land ownership
to empower rural women reinvigorated the
debate and created a sense of hope. But it is in
pondering implementation that one’s optimism
about land redistribution dies a sudden death.
A welter of cultural, political and other hurdles
vis-à-vis land ownership still need to be cleared.
While the land problem may appear the same
for most Africa countries, approaches to the
problem are still worlds apart. Moreover, the
legacy of colonialism still looms large. Against
this background, it would be interesting to see
how the AU will take the PAP resolution on land
forward. Perhaps the question for PAP should be:
why does the parliament not undertake a study
and present the AU with policy options rather
than grand ideas?
Then there is the question of power relations
between PAP and other organs of the AU that
also played out during deliberations. During
discussions, a submission was made to the house
to consider inviting the AU chairperson on an
annual basis to make a ‘state of the continent’
address to PAP. This suggestion was actually
in line with Article 11 (5) of the PAP Protocol
that gives the parliament powers to ‘Request
officials of the OAU/AEC to attend its sessions,
produce documents or assist in the discharge of
its duties’. In giving PAP an oversight role, Rule
5 of the PAP’s Rules of Procedure also empowers
the parliament to invite representatives of AU
structures. However, it was interesting to observe
parliamentarians differing on whether it would
be a breach of protocol to invite the AU chairperson
or not. The PAP President finally ruled that
the Bureau of PAP would consult on this matter.
While the lack of clarity on power relations
could be a function of PAP’s infancy, the potential
for a power clash between the parliament
and other AU structures cannot be discounted.
The question is: is PAP ready to adopt decisions,
even when it is aware that such decisions may
not necessarily go down well with AU heads of
state or other AU organs?
Resolutions and recommendations aside,
deliberations during this session were in many
ways an indication that there is still a lot that the
parliamentarians themselves still need to master
about the business of PAP itself. The parliamentarians
often appeared unfamiliar with their own
procedures, hence the constant reference by the
PAP President to the Rules of Procedure. A few
other small things, such as late printing of session
material, constant changing of daily orders
and non-adherence to time schedules were also
characteristic of a fledging parliament. In the
final analysis one has to ask: what can a parliament
composed of parliamentarians from weak
national parliaments do to improve governance
on the continent? While this may not be completely
devoid of truth, it would be fair to give
PAP sometime to prove itself. At the same time,
PAP probably has little chance of maintaining
the optimism generated by its launch if it does
not demonstrate its utility in the short term.
