Questions for the advocacy community: Q2 – Alex de Waal

Q2: Is citizen advocacy at its most effective when it generates maximum “noise” on an issue , or do citizen advocates need to attach particular policy prescriptions to the noise they make?

Alex de Waal:

The two cases in question suggest that it is not a question of either/or but of getting the right combination of “noise” and specific prescription.

In the case of the landmine campaign, the combination of “noise” and policy expertise was crucial. There were few mass rallies but rather targeted events and online mobilization using email. The “noise” was less popular mobilization and more a network of existing NGOs and concerned policymakers.

The coalition included both advocacy and assistance organizations, giving space both to those who demanded normative change (a ban) and those whose concern was practical assistance (medical and humanitarian assistance to landmine survivors and clearance efforts). In addition, some members of the campaign were captivated by the energy of the campaign itself, fascinated by the challenge of mobilization, and enthused by the commitment of the campaigners. Late in the day it gained hugely from the profile of celebrities, notably Princess Diana, who had the potential to generate some extraordinarily powerful images-a capability she used with considerable skill.

Technical expertise was key. Credibility with policymakers, and especially the military, was crucially reliant on the fact that some of the leaders of the campaign had greater technical expertise in demining than the militaries. Whereas military deminers were trained primarily to breach minefields for a military assault, humanitarian deminers worked to higher standards of 100% mine clearance with near-zero tolerance of casualties. Humanitarian deminers also worked in diverse situations around the world and quickly developed a breadth of experience that outranked their military counterparts. This allowed them to knock down spurious technical arguments in support of mines.

Diversity of approach combined with technical competence was also important in the case of HIV/AIDS activism. In the early days of the epidemic, domestic American AIDS activists combined some spectacular public protests (drawing on the dramatic skills of the artistic community) with a fast-growing level of technical literacy on the medical issues. Medical literacy quickly led to a commensurate expertise on questions of drug development, regulation, patenting and pricing. AIDS activists had leverage over pharmaceutical companies both through their power to embarrass them, and also because they represented a market-and were willing to be subjects in drug trials even in cases which involved breaching established standards of risk. In turn this led to a raft of highly-specific technical policy issues ranging from drug patenting to the establishment of new international financial instruments such as the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. The rapid growth of official AIDS organizations in donor governments and the UN system also meant that a number of individuals from an activist background were rapidly promoted to senior positions, creating influential insider-outsider networks of advocacy and policymaking.

Alex de Waal – is a program director at the Social Science Research Council, engaged in projects on HIV/AIDS and Social Transformation and on Emergencies and Humanitarian Action. He is editor of the blog Making Sense of Darfur