April 21, 2019

We need both – but the devil is in the detail

As this week’s posts have been articulating so well, advocates need both noise-making and policy-prescriptions in their toolkit – at varying degrees over different times and, I would add, depending on which kind of advocates we are talking about (grassroots vs. grasstops etc). Today Jill Savitt makes the important point that “the cost of having noise without policy is that you make it easier for policymakers to avoid taking action” (A brief side note: It seems to me that a contemporary version of this dilemma for Darfur advocates is how to translate the impressive  – and ever-growing- amount of “noise” generated by the Darfur FastforLife, spear-headed by Mia Farrow, to spur policymakers to take action). Meanwhile, Alex de Waal’s post forces us to take a step outside of the current Darfur crisis and look back at the way previous campaigns – HIV/AIDS and the banning of landmines – dealt with these issues.

Trackbacks

  1. […] in part I’m thinking through the recent discussions among Darfur advocates on this site about the fraught process involved in transitioning from “noise-making” – the awareness […]

  2. […] Shocking.  You claim to be somehow challenging basic assumptions by asking this, but in your final post about this question, in which you summarize what you’ve learned from people’s responses, […]

Speak Your Mind

*