Questions for the advocacy community: Q3 – Eric Cohen

What are the costs/benefits of single issue advocacy? Does the focus on a single issue crowd out the potential to focus on structural changes that would be required to deal with both the single issue and other related issues?

Some recent high-visibility discussions and critiques of the “save” Darfur movement focus on knowledge – Sudan and Africa history, expertise, economics, colonialism, labels, definitions, politics, tribes, rebels, policy, expertise.  These factors are sometimes illuminating, sometimes fascinating, sometimes dry and bloodless.  However, most activists know that it is not these educational factors that drive them, but rather their personal sense of connection to the crisis and human tragedy in Sudan that energizes them to be activists for Darfur.  They often want to understand more, though few aspire to be Sudan experts.  However much they know, they are ready to follow leaders in the movement and to provide political support so that our government may take action to help, overcoming inertia and aversion to political risk.

The “save” Darfur movement demonstrates that whatever the particulars and the goals of an advocacy campaign, advocacy that successfully engages, energizes, and motivates people can generate broad-based initiatives, including advocacy for structural changes, that go well beyond the initial advocacy focus. As one thing follows another, these offshoots may diverge from or continue to be closely related to the original initiative.  One test of advocacy is whether it achieved its specific goals.  Another test is the goodness of the descendants of that advocacy.

Some examples relating to Darfur advocacy:  The narrow focus on Darfur has generated millions of American activists for the broader cause of a new Sudan.  Darfur activism spawned a “targeted divestment” movement, energizing top colleges and universities across the country; concern for distant Darfur, generated local campus activism for divestment.  Campus divestment, spawned state government divestment from Sudan, embraced by 27 states, and counting.  In my state, preliminary efforts to get the Massachusetts state pension fund to divest from PetroChina and other problem companies supporting the regime in Khartoum, led to recognition of the broad, industry-wide problem of financial institutions investing in genocide, spawning a national campaign of shareholder proposals to get mutual funds to commit to “genocide-free investing.”  Millions of ordinary investors voted for genocide-free investing, joining students across the country, all of whom had became advocates for Darfur.  Targeted divestment might not, by itself, cause the change in Sudan that activists work to create, but it does cause many millions of Americans to have a personal reason to be activists and supporters for Darfur.  After all, who wants their personal or family savings or pensions to be connected to the worst crimes against humanity? Who wants their university to be investing in genocide?  How many of these individual people, once they are energized, are ready to support political action for a new Sudan? How many will support the structural changes in the recommendations of the Genocide Prevention Task Force? How many students, touched by Darfur activism and organizing efforts from STAND, are inspired to invest time in Sudan or elsewhere in Africa?  Who can say how great a seismic shift will result from this investment of youth and talent?

Does single issue advocacy have the potential for structural change?  Surely, yes, just as one thing follows another.  Even if the movement does not “save” Darfur, it may yet work miracles.

Eric Cohen is the Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur