Governments will choose to make decisions and take action on certain policy issues (and ignore others) during their time in office, that is, these will be issues on the agenda and a “policy window” will open in these areas.1 Once an issue is on the agenda, they will invite debate and input through public participation, commissioning and publishing research, establishing various working groups, and promoting their positions through the media and in Parliament. Some type of debate will probably happen in public and through formal procedures and/or in a more quiet, behind-the-scenes manner among experts and interested parties. If you are interested and prepared to advocate on agenda issues at this time, there will naturally be more interest in the positions put forward by any stakeholder. This is the simplest and most obvious idea behind the notion of demand. You will not have to create momentum around the issue; it already exists.
Determine whether there is a call for change.
Of course, a policy issue does not necessarily have to be on the government agenda for debate to exist. Groups of experts, public officials and interested stakeholders continually discuss their professional policy issues and players such as activists, watchdogs, international organizations, political parties, associations, and unions often start or continue debates on many issues that do not appear on the current government agenda. Nevertheless, from an advocacy perspective, the ultimate reason they initiate and engage in such debates is to get the government to actually respond and act on their concerns.
The fact that a government chooses to act in a particular policy area simply means that more people are likely to be interested in reading, listening, responding to, and engaging with your advocacy efforts. Much of the literature points to the fact that you are much more likely to be successful in influencing policy if some level of demand for it already exists.2 Further, it is worth noting that “policy influence is not a spontaneous by-product of good quality research”3 and that supply without some existing demand will not easily lead to policy change. While this insight should not discourage you from developing issues on which there is little debate, it should make you realize that your first feasible advocacy objective is to create the type of discussion that puts pressure to get the issue on the agenda. You should also realize that in this case, your proposed policy change will probably take time and considerable resources and commitment.
Try to feed into an existing policy debate.
Some level of demand already existed in all four of our cases analyzed at the point where the advocates started their campaigns. The following three examples illustrate different dimensions of demand:
Case 2: Kosovo (UNSCR 1244)
Reorganization of local administrative units in Mitrovica (2003–2006)
Think tank (European Stability Initiative)
At the beginning of the European Stability Initiative research and advocacy, the town of Mitrovica was the leitmotif for the problems of Kosovo (UNSCR 1244), with the two ethnic groups living entirely separately from each other divided by the Ibar river. The challenge of Mitrovica had been extensively discussed in national, regional, and international policy circles and the media and stakeholders were stuck on how to solve what they viewed as a policing/security problem.
Case 3: Macedonia
Introducing and passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights (2006–2008)
Policy fellow and think tank (Studiorum)
The passing of a Patients’ Bill of Rights for Macedonia was part of the commitments made by the country through the EU accession process. It was on the legislative agenda but was not really a high priority for the new administration in 2006. The fact that Studiorum was able to show that much of the hard work was already completed through their research from 2006, combined with having access to the new advisor to the minister of health, meant that the issue moved easily onto the agenda of the government. In fact, the EU accession process has created many opportunities for such research to have influence, as the EU/EC often frames it questions in policy-oriented terms and wants to see evidence-based answers in return.4
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)
Revenue received by the Mongolian government through mining contracts with international mining companies has been a huge issue for over a decade in Mongolia. Stories of large-scale corruption, unfairly negotiated contacts, and environmental damage have been at the center of the debate. All sectors have been involved in this issue because the mining sector has the potential to revolutionize the economic future of the country. Through this broader discussion, a new mining law was passed in 2006 to regulate the contracting process.
The discovery of one of the largest copper deposits in the world, the Oyu Tolgoi mine, focused this debate on the potentially richest reserve in Mongolia. Despite this pressure, the initial negotiation undertaken with a ministerial working group was a closed discussion, although many tried to get involved. Once the draft contract was submitted to Parliament for approval in July 2007, the Open Society Forum got an advance copy, made it public, and pushed quickly to publish an expert analysis of the draft and to try to stop the signing of what their experts evaluated to be a badly negotiated contract.
In the following sections, we develop the need to understand the type of change that is being discussed as well as the unpredictable nature of demand.