Advocacy

What is Advocacy?

There is no single definition of advocacy. There are many different definitions of advocacy, for example:

Definitions of Advocacy

Exercise: What is your definition of advocacy? Review the 6 definitions above. What are the common elements of these definitions? Which of these definitions appeal most to you? What are the core elements in that definition that appeal to you? What would be your definition of advocacy? Share and discuss this with your colleagues with whom you work (in advocacy).

Although there is no single definition, in order to work together on advocacy it is important to agree on a working definition, in order to have the same interpretation when we talk about advocacy.

For example, RNW Media has chosen the following definition for advocacy:

A set of targeted actions directed at decision-makers in support of a specific policy issue. RNW Media has chosen this definition, as it is simple and to the point and it points out the following essential elements:

→ ‘Targeted actions’, so there is a strategy.
→ ‘Directed at a decision maker’, so there is a clear target.
→ ‘Specific policy issue’, so there is a clear objective

Many NGOs tend to focus on policies instead of laws in their advocacy work. Policies (which are principles by which authorities are guided) are more flexible than laws and more easily changed.

Why is Advocacy Important?

Advocacy is important because it addresses the root causes of problems (it affects systems), leading to longer-term, more sustainable benefits for young people and their communities.

If you’re wondering about the difference between advocacy, BCC (behaviour change communication) and IEC (information, education and communication), click on the file below.

Advocacy, BCC & IEC Download

Legitimacy and Advocacy

Legitimacy is an important element within advocacy, because it indicates how valid the advocacy is, based on logic or justification.

Exercise: Assessing Legitimacy: Reflect on the following case studies. Who do you think has more legitimacy, Nelson or Florence? Write down the reasons why.

NELSON

Nelson is a middle-aged man who feels that children should be trusted with information to help them be healthy, including information about sexual health. He wants local schools to teach about these issues. He says “It seems obvious to me that we should share correct factual information with children, to help them learn to protect themselves. Schools are a good place to do this.”

FLORENCE

Florence is a young woman who wants her national Girl Guide Association to adopt a policy of including sexuality education in sessions with its members. She points to the experience of the Girl Guide Association in a neighbouring country which has been providing sexuality education for two years and reports a fall in pregnancy rate among its members. She says “I’ve met with three groups of girls locally and they are enthusiastic about learning about sexuality in the safe environment of their guide group. My online survey of girl guides got 89 respondents, of whom 93% were in favour. Significantly, 76% of guide leaders were also in favour, providing they are given good materials and support”.

Factors that Provide Legitimacy in Advocacy

The advocate has things in common with the people who will benefit from the advocacy change.
The advocate has close connections to the group who will benefit, so knows and understands the issues well.
The advocate provides evidence to support their claim.
The advocate provides proof of support from the group who will benefit.

Legitimacy in the context of advocacy refers to “who or what gives the organisation the right to interfere”. On whose behalf is the organisation aiming to realise change? In other words:

What gives this organisation the authority to do so and why would policy makers and decision makers listen to them?

You are representing the voice of a large group of people or
You have extensive scientific evidence backing up your claim.

Advocacy Tools and Actions

The Scale of Naughtiness

There are very different ways to tackle advocacy work. Different activities fit different situations. For example, public action is confrontational. If you already have a relationship with a policy maker it is not wise to start with a confrontational activity as it can ruin your relationship. In that case you are more likely to use advising. If the non-confrontational way does not work, you can always shift towards more confrontational ones at a later stage.

Below you find an example of how your scale of naughtiness could look like. On the left hand side are non-confrontational tools and actions and towards the right hand side the more confrontational ones.

Once you have defined your relationship with the policy maker, you can decide on appropriate tools and actions:

	You and the policy maker do not share a joint interest	You and the policy maker do share a joint interest
The policy maker is not in your network	Public action ~ making the policy maker aware of and responsive to the issue through: → Demonstrations → Petitions → Media campaigns → Awareness raising – Campaigns → Legal processes	Advising ~ process of formal exchange and negotiation involving: → Consultations → Expert meetings → Conferences → Round table conversations → Research presentations
The policy maker is in your network	Networking ~making contact and building relations through: → Drinks, social meetings → Political party gatherings → Conferences → Coincidental meetings	Lobby ~ informing and influencing policy maker from within an informal relationship through: → One-to-one conversations → Telephone consultations → Drinks, social meetings → Coincidental meetings

Engagement with decision/policy makers is an important factor in developing an advocacy strategy as it determines the methods to use. Engagement refers to the relation an organisation has with decision/policy makers and the position it takes towards these decision/policy makers. It is important to realise that engagement is not static and can change over time and that the used methods will change accordingly.

As shown above, there is a clear link between a policy makers interest in the topic and the method to use, as well as between the relation between the organisation and the policy maker. If there is no relation and the policy maker doesn’t know the topic yet, public action would be the best method to start with, as the aim is to get the issue on the agenda of the policy maker (agenda setting). The organisation starts from its own interest to make it the decision maker’s interest. Once the topic is known the other methods can be used. The ultimate aim is to get a one to one meeting (lobby) with the decision/policymakers, either directly when the topic is known and the relation is close or indirectly via public actions and/or networking.

Your target, a policy maker, can also be an ally. Often targets in advocacy are seen as opponents, but you can also lobby and advocate with allies (to make them even stronger allies or have them turn opponents into allies).

Exercise: The Scale of Naughtiness: Review the different actions you are planning in your campaign and tools mentioned above. Now taking the “scale of naughtiness” with one extreme “confrontation” and the other “negotiation”, where do you think each type of planned action/tool fits? Why? What would be your reasons or conditions for choosing a (more) confrontational tool/activity vs a non-confrontational one (more towards negotiation)?