{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014592933947772658, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1753554502369665, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The adequacy of the African Peace and Security Architecture to deal with serious democratic deficits

The popular uprisings and ensuing political developments in North Africa entail serious implications for Africa and its emerging peace and security regime, otherwise known as the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). Notably, they triggered questions on the adequacy of the normative and policy frameworks of the APSA to provide clear guidelines on how the African Union (AU) may pursue a principled response to similar events. Most importantly, the events have put to the test the potential role and limitations of the APSA to address serious democratic deficits. In this article, it is argued that although the issues that precipitated the uprisings are identified as threats to peace and security under the APSA, the APSA lacked clear guidance on how the AU may pursue a principled response to the uprisings. Nor did it prescribe the means of adequately enforcing the commitments AU member states undertook in the various AU instruments. While the article proffers options for rectifying these gaps, it notes that many of the limitations of the APSA arise from constraints of consensus-building among, and political will of, member states to respond to crises coherently and effectively.