Does the global or national context matter the most to advocacy?
This essay argues that although global and national context matter to advocacy, national context matters more. Firstly, this essay will start by exploring the basic question of how advocacy is conceived of and carried out in different contexts from a practitioner's perspective, as well as what global and national context refers when discussing advocacy to set a clear basis of the following discussion regarding the relation between context and advocacy. Secondly, this essay will use…….Thirdly, this essay will……., Finally, this essay will conclude that although dimensions are universal as are the dilemmas associated with multilevel social change, issues related to decision-making structures such as accountability and agility also apply globally, but internal mechanisms for balancing power differences between groups may vary according to context. Strategies and tactics employed in advocacies and campaigns come out of a specific social, political, cultural, and economic context and may not be applicable to other settings, and what constitutes effective advocacy approaches may be very different from one country to another. To understand how these basic issues and success factors are addressed under different regimes and contexts, additional research and reflection needs to be conducted.
Concept of advocacy and its context
Advocacy
With a diverse landscape of issues, arenas, strategies, approaches, and campaign participants, as well as the core principle of equity, fairness, social justice, and human rights, advocacy involves a multi-dimensional understanding. Although there are different understanding of what advocacy means in international development, the basic idea is very simple: the process of influencing people to create change. It is widely recognised that change comes rarely from force of logical argument alone or from the presentation of irrefutable evidence in support of the changes required. Change only happy when the right people work together with the right strategies and allies within the right context. Generally, it means those without much power for authority pushing those who have more. The pushing for change can range from street demonstrations, as in Belgrade from the end of 1996 to the beginning of 1997, to writing policy documents that appeal to reason and make good sense.
Advocacy is tricky for most development NGOs as context should be taken into consideration before strategies are taking shape. Greenpeace has found that campaigns against whaling and seal hunting can be very successful, but whenever it takes on a more complex issue, especially where economics is concerned, they start losing their audience. Oxfam has been threatened more than once by the charity commissioners for skating too close to the political edge.
Political and Social Context
A country’s political and social context shapes the attitudes and influence strategies of NGOs and popular organizations and affects the kinds of success they are able to achieve. Political context refers to the degree that civilian governance structures, rule of law, freedom of expression, and open access to information and decision-making channels exist in the country. Social context
The strategies and campaigns developed in one context may vary considerably from those developed in another. When state institutions are not democratic or representative and when government offices ignore community concerns, the scope of strategies available to groups for influencing policy is limited. Working with the Congress or
parliament on legislative change, for example, will probably not be productive. Open confrontation and protest, in such circumstances, may be inevitable, although this may differ according to social and cultural context and levels of state repression.
These cases emerge from a particular Philippines context that was characterized by a history of repression, structures of formal democracy, the relatively peaceful overthrow of a dictatorship, and an unusual political opening that offered the hope of a more democratic government. Situations like the Philippines challenge NGOs and POs to respond to different political moments and opportunities. To be effective as the context changes, they need to be able to change and develop strategies appropriate to the possibilities presented by the new environment. In the Philippines, for example, these included such opportunities as direct advocacy with state officials through the legislature, parliament, executive, line agencies. judiciary and local government or with the public at large through the media and public education campaigns. However, attitudes formed under previously violent and abusive regimes may hamper the ability of NGOs and POs to take advantage of the new maneuvering room. Accustomed to regarding the state as a monolithic deadly enemy, groups that find it difficult to identify and cultivate government allies
and to negotiate with them for incremental reforms. Other groups may enter the fray with no strategic long term vision and end up being coopted or diverted from their social change agenda and lose the opportunity to address crucial structural problems. Transitions to a more democratic pluralistic state, however, are not smooth. Periods of openness and opportunity may be followed by greater state control and repression. President Aquino, as an example, faced several serious coup attempts during her administration which, if successful, could have led to an abrupt closure of the political maneuvering room opened up by Marcos’ overthrow. While groups need to take full advantage of periods when they can actively pursue policy reform, NGOs and POs also need to be prepared for times when they have to give priority to protecting and defending their society’s democratic openings and their own right to participate in policymaking.
The case studies demonstrate that more often than not advocacy is carried out beyond a particular local, regional or national area and draws on a range of actors and allies with different perspectives and agendas, with implications of building and maintaining coalitions, developing strategies and determining what are acceptable outcomes. The case studies also show that regardless of how open or closed the political system is, successful efforts employ a range of flexible and responsive strategies for changing circumstance by identifying a range of leverage points, from the power of rights arguments to identifying sympathetic allies within otherwise hostile targets.
The aims of advocacy, in the social and economic development context, are to create or change policies, laws, regulations, distribution of resources or other decisions that affect people’s lives and to ensure that such decisions lead to implementation.Such advocacy is generally directed at policy makers including politicians, government officials and public servants, but also private sector leaders whose decisions impact upon people's lives, as well as those whose opinions and actions influence policy makers, such as journalists and the media, development agencies and large NGOs.
Policy change rarely happens overnight and is often linked to broader change in the political environment. Effective advocacy requires long-term as well as short-term thinking, an understanding of the points of resistance and the means to gain traction, the readiness to form alliances, and the flexibility to seize windows of opportunity.
Campaigns for policy change are often built in response to particular opportunities or threats arising in the context of the process of policy change. For example, the transition from analogue to digital distribution systems for television is moving ahead rapidly worldwide, with only limited time for civil society organisations to gain guarantees of access to the new channels. In Uruguay, a law first drafted in 2005 by a coalition including community broadcasting activists, journalists and labour unions was adopted in 2007, guaranteeing an equitable distribution of frequencies between private, public and civil society organisations. The law has ensured that civil society groups have a legal entitlement to use part of the digital television spectrum.
In Ecuador, the process of adopting a new constitution that began in 2007 under the presidency of Rafael Correa was seen as an opportunity by civil society groups engaged in media and ICT advocacy to challenge the existing political economy of the communications environment and to propose a new communication rights framework. The new constitution adopted in 2008 included the explicit entitlement of all persons to universal access to information and communication technologies, together with a right to the creation of social media, including equal access to radio frequencies.
E. Implementation
(i)Getting the message across
The lifeblood of advocacy is good strategic communications – educating people about a need and mobilizing them to meet it. Good communications is at the core of effective advocacy. This requires attention to the message, the audience and the means of delivery. The message needs to be clear: it should explain what is being proposed, why it is needed, and what difference it would make. It also needs to be compelling: it should be crafted to the interests and knowledge of the audience. The means of delivery must ensure it is received and heard – whether, for example, a written proposal, face-to-face presentation or public demonstration. It is rare that a single advocacy message will be received and acted upon. The message needs to reinforced, by repetition and through the influence of secondary audiences.
(ii)Using the media
The media – radio, television, press and online media – have a particular role to play in public advocacy initiatives, especially campaign-based approaches. Not all advocacy work uses the media, and a media-based approach carries risks as well as opportunities. The media can bring a mass audience, potentially increasing profile and credibility, but they can also bring bad publicity and may contribute to mobilising opposition as well as support. Using the media requires planning and skills, including building contacts, knowing the media audience, writing press releases, placing stories, being interviewed, providing visual imagery and organising newsworthy events.
(iii)Building partnerships and coalitions
Most advocacy initiatives involve some degree of mobilising public support behind the proposal. What partnerships and alliances are most likely to assist in mobilising broad-based support? What processes can best achieve trust, collective ownership, and effective collaboration? Should the initiative operate as an open coalition and, if so, what mechanisms are needed to enable participation and to assure accountability? Is support needed to build the advocacy capacity of partner organisations? Media and the internet can also be used to recruit and mobilise broad-based public support.
(iv)Employing tactics and negotiation
Advocacy is rarely a one-way communications process. Some advocacy work is more reactive than proactive towards policy makers, or is explicitly dialogical. In any case, policy and decision makers may well respond to advocacy proposals with their own questions or alternative proposals. Other interested parties may launch strategies to counter the proposals being made. It may become necessary to modify the proposals to achieve results. What alternatives might be considered? What counter proposals can be expected? What is non-negotiable and what could be up for discussion?
(v)Monitoring and evaluation
Throughout the implementation phase it is important to monitor the process, the results and the policy context. Mechanisms are needed to track activities such as meetings and communications and to monitor results such as media coverage and expressions of public support. Data needs to be maintained on the target audiences: contact details, positions they have taken, offers of assistance and so on. The process and results should be evaluated not only at the end of the planned timeframe but on a regular basis so that adjustments, if needed, can be made to the strategy and plan of action. Advocacy invariably takes place in a dynamic environment, especially when the focus is on ICTs. The policy terrain can change for social, political or economic reasons that are independent of the advocacy initiative underway. The ability to react quickly and flexibly, to spot windows of opportunity, and to anticipate new challenges requires close monitoring of the policy context and of broader trends.
The sampling strategy also provides a global perspective with diverse political, social and cultural contexts for the cases.
The analysis of these cases has resulted in the
development of a multidimensional framework of
success. We believe these dimensions are universal
as are the dilemmas associated with multilevel social
change. In addition, we believe the issues related to decision-making structures such as accountability and agility also apply globally, but internal mechanisms
for balancing power differences between groups may vary according to context.
Finally, the strategies and tactics employed in the Philippines come out of a specific social, political, cultural, and economic context and may not be applicable to other settings. What constitutes effective advocacy approaches may be very different from one
country to another. To understand how these basic issues and success factors are addressed under different regimes and contexts, additional research and reflection
needs to be conducted.