Beyond your own team of messengers or brokers, having the broader support of others, whether in a formal coalition or a more informal network of supporters, is also a major factor in effective advocacy.1 Being able to show that influential individuals, organizations, associations of stakeholders, or even advisors and other policymakers are on your side is pivotal to building the legitimacy of the position you are putting forward. In fact, experience shows that the most successful networks supporting policy advocacy initiatives normally include a wide range of actors, including researchers, decisionmakers, NGOs, and affected stakeholders.2 You really do need friends in the process, but this does not just mean teaming up with those already close to you: it’s about building strategic alliances.
The support of a wide range of stakeholders will make your case more compelling for decisionmakers.
Building such purposeful networks means engaging all actors as early as possible and keeping them on board through the process, which also means that coordination and communication are critical.3 In fact, building this support is often the first step in many advocacy campaigns, as the approval and support of a broad consensus of people can make the difference between a decisionmaker listening to and engaging with your ideas or just ignoring them. Hence, building on your analysis of people, networks, and power in the “way into the process” circle of APF, you should strategically consider who you need and can get as supporters and how to build broader support in the network. It is worth repeating that personal and informal relationships are often very important in this kind of work.
Building a network is not just about numbers; it’s about building strategic alliances.
You should also think beyond just the level of support that coalition partners can bring, but also the resources and capacities that you don’t have and could use in your advocacy effort. For example: analytical capacity, funding, previous advocacy experience, access to other networks, constituencies, research, data, media, and international organizations or policymakers. As already mentioned, targeting your selection of other support on the basis of identified resource or capacity gaps and on the basis of the skills and experience that complement yours is more focused and prudent than just aligning yourself with friends in the network.
Try to find the support of opinion leaders in the network and those who help you to fill a capacity gap.
Building and drawing on support networks was a fundamental part of the advocacy success in all our cases studied and two examples follow below.
Case 3: Macedonia
Introducing and passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights (2006–2008)
Policy fellow and think tank (Studiorum)
Two examples from this case:
-
For a number of years before the campaign, Studiorum was a member of an international NGO network that had drafted the EU Charter o Patients Rights. This was a strong starting point for the government to recognize them as the “go to” organization in this area.
-
During the parliamentary stage of the debate on the Patients’ Bill of Rights, the government considered passing the bill without discussing the fiscal implications of some of the rights contained in the legislation, such as the right to a second medical opinion. So Studiorum and other NGOs, through a parliamentary MP group, were able to pressure the government to allow time for a public debate and input on the necessary financial commitments to make the principles in the bill a reality.
Case 4: Mongolia
Preventing the signing of an ill-considered mining contract between Mongolian government and international mining consortium (2006–2007)
National and international NGO Coalition
(Open Society Forum, Mongolia and Revenue Watch Institute)
In this instance, as a long-established independent NGO in Mongolia, the Open Society Forum has friends in many political and NGO circles. They actually received a first copy of the draft contract from MPs with whom they have a long-established working relationship. The ministerial working group that began the negotiations had kept it secret in their discussions prior to the parliamentary round.
Having very good connections with the NGO community, the Open Society Forum only needed to act as facilitator bring partners together at a media event. Once they presented their negative analysis of the draft agreement, a broad NGO coalition immediately reacted. In fact, large street demonstrations and lobbying of Parliament occurred almost immediately.
A further point arises from the Mongolian case about support from others for advocacy campaigns:
- Building support networks is usually a long-term project and not just tied to one advocacy campaign.
In many advocacy plans, coalition building is listed as the first stage of the project. However, even if you have a new idea to put to potential partners, you will not cold call them; you will go to the people you know and they can then put you in contact with others who might be interested. In addition, if you focus and work in one policy area for any length of time in a country or region, you will become part of the network of people and organizations that are also involved in that issue. So, of course, it is best to have these networks established and be able to leverage them at short notice.
Having established support networks allows for quick responses when an opportunity or crisis arises.
Policy windows don’t always open in a predictable manner or with advance notice; hence, being in a position to respond quickly when an opportunity arises can make a significant difference to your chances of achieving influence. The Mongolian case is a good illustration of immediately mobilizing already-existing support, showing the benefits of investing time in networking on an ongoing basis as a priority, and not just tied to one single advocacy campaign. The long-term investment in building a network and maintaining their independent reputation also allowed the Open Society Forum access to the draft mining contract, which was pivotal in providing an opportunity to respond before it was too late.
Advocacy planning checklist
Consider the support of others you need for your advocacy campaign:
- What type and level of support from others do you need to achieve your objectives?
- Can you draw on your already existing network for the campaign or do you need to recruit new members?
- Who are the key people you need to get behind your position? Are they already part of your network or can other supporters help to convince them?
- Who are the easier people to convince? And the more difficult?
- Who will come on board only after you have secured support of others on your team?
- Are there people you can target to fill skill and resource gaps in your campaign?