Here, we focus on how the decision-making process actually happens. The how and who are obviously two sides of one coin, but we feel they are worth looking at individually.
We’ve emphasized that a starting point for effective advocacy is having a good understanding of the policy landscape, that is, the target decision-making process. However, there is often a great difference between the formally stated decision-making process and the reality of how the decision is really made. For example, the formal statement of a policy process for an environmental policy may be that an initiative starts in an environmental ministry where they have an internal working group of officials, advisors, and invited stakeholders who then submit draft legislation to the Parliament, which opens a public debate and starts a working group of their own. After the requisite time for public discussion and input from other experts, the initiative is then brought up in the Parliament for discussion and a vote. The reality of this decision might be that it is actually a negotiated settlement between the government, business interests, and an environmental coalition of local NGOs backed by international organizations and donors. This is where the deal is done and where the real decision is made.
This is why we choose to focus on decision-making “practice” rather than process, as the emphasis is rather different.1 This focus on practice may be especially important in transition countries, as even the formal processes often tend to happen at the discretion of the individual or institution leading the process or because of external pressure (as mentioned in the section above).
It’s crucial to know how decisions are really made.
The following case studies illustrate that knowing the reality of the decision-making process was an important factor:
Case 2: Kosovo (UNSCR 1244)
Reorganization of local administrative units in Mitrovica (2003–2006)
Think tank (European Stability Initiative)
In the Mitrovica case, the European Stability Initiative ran and mediated an entire informal and parallel process to get the two sides to discuss and respond to their research and proposals, and also facilitated the inclusion of the international community, local political parties, governments, and the media.
A good example of their understanding of the real practice of decisionmaking is illustrated in how they dealt with advisors and opinion leaders in Belgrade on the Mitrovica issue. During the initial meeting of both sides from Mitrovica in Wilton Park, the Kosovar (UNSCR 1244) prime minister committed to the administrative division of the town as well as freedom of movement, the full return of property, and joint economic development of the town. Knowing there were opinion leaders in Belgrade who could possibly force local Serb leaders to back down on these commitments, the European Stability Initiative went to Belgrade to try to convince them not to. While they did not convince them to buy into the whole idea, it was enough to convince them to not block the process at a certain time. This was very important in moving the process forward.
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)
The history of contracts between Mongolian government officials and mining companies has been one marred by allegations of large-scale corruption. The law on mining in 2006 was an attempt to formalize and make more transparent and inclusive these negotiation processes. So, once the negotiation began in 2006 about the Oyu Tolgi mine (one of the largest copper deposits in the world), there was a great worry from those outside the executive of how well these new procedures would actually work.
The initial negotiations happened between the companies and a ministerial working group, but did not allow any outside participation in the group. The Open Society Forum tried to get access to the debate but was only allowed to offer training to the group, and never got to see the draft agreement. It was only when the agreement was submitted to Parliament that it became available to the Forum and only at that point because the government was made up of a broad coalition of political parties, some of which had worked closely with the Open Society Forum in the past.
Advocacy planning checklist
Consider the reality of the decision-making process for your advocacy plan:
- What are the formally stated stages of decisionmaking on your issue?
- Are there more informal decision-making structures and networks that will influence or lead the decision in your area?
- Who is involved in these more informal discussions?
- How does this balance of formal and informal decisionmaking feed into your advocacy plan?
-
Fisher 2003. ↩︎