what more – can be done about each bottleneck within the context of the APRM and how we can do it. This three-level structure thus forms the analytical framework for the entire study. Finally, while dealing with each of these bottlenecks is important, it is understood that particular countries will prioritise them differently. Methodology The report was prepared primarily based on desk research, relying heavily on the 17 country review reports (CRRs), all of which were consulted. We also consulted other sources, including institutional reports and relevant academic literature. Moreover, since these are African problems, the study did not limit itself to consideration of states participating in the APRM, or to reports produced by the APRM. Literature and commentary was consulted on non-APRM states to establish as complete a picture of these bottlenecks on the continent as possible. Importantly, research input provided by SAIIA also conducted an online survey posing questions to an audience of around 1000 stakeholders in the field of African governance, which elicited some 140 responses. While this survey was not intended to be scientific, a range of stakeholders completed the questionnaires, providing the reader with the perspectives of people who are committed to and involved in the APRM. The report was also informed by an account of APRM governance standards as well as Agenda 2063, which provided the context for the analyses. In light of its limited objective – to examine the extent to which these bottlenecks have been addressed within the framework of the APRM and what the Mechanism can do to deal with them more effectively – the report does not claim to provide a comprehensive account of the APRM‘s findings on each bottleneck in every APRM-participating country on the continent. Instead, the report attempts to provide an overview of the most important issues germane to each of the bottlenecks, often providing illustrations with the help of examples, and explore options to address them within the framework of the APRM. Finally, it is important to note that these bottlenecks do not exist entirely independently of one another. There is considerable overlap and interdependence among them. For this reason, the discussions of the various bottlenecks are cross-referenced to others that deal with closely related subject matter. Bottleneck 1: Ideological disorientation Concept Described by President Museveni as ―ideological disorientation‖, this bottleneck refers to the politicised divisions in society and the tensions that they create. Describing this bottleneck as the first in the original list of 11 bottlenecks, President Museveni observed: ―These include sectarianism of tribe and religion as well as gender chauvinism. In Africa, this sectarianism has resulted in conflicts, and wars which have hindered development in the continent since independence over 50 years ago. Africa should treat with contempt and not tolerate those who promote sectarianism and gender chauvinism; that is why Uganda‘s record on women emancipation is excellent and there is peace in the whole Country.‖9 Accordingly, ―ideological disorientation‖ is here understood to mean discrimination based essentially on three characteristics of the human person: ethnic or tribal origin, religious belief, or gender. Understood in this form, ideological disorientation has been a widespread challenge in Africa since the end of colonialism. As Francis Deng noted, the post-colonial African state was constructed within borders that were drawn on maps by people sitting in faraway places and without considering ethnographic cultural, or religious characteristics of its subjects, and at times dividing families between countries. At the departure of the colonial powers, the colonial-era boundaries were by and large retained with little or no adjustments. As Deng puts it: Today, virtually every African conflict has some ethno-regional dimension to it. Even those conflicts that may appear to be free of ethnic concerns involve factions and alliances built around ethnic loyalties. Analysts have tended to have one of two views of the role of ethnicity in these conflicts. Some see ethnicity as a source of conflict; others see it as a tool used by political entrepreneurs to promote their ambitions. In reality, it is both. Ethnicity, especially when combined with territorial identity, is a reality that exists independently of political manoeuvres. To argue that ethnic groups are unwitting tools of political manipulation is to underestimate a 9 Discussion Paper, p. 2. 14