In contrast to the broad shared thinking or narrative on an issue, this is an attempt to map the specific opinions and positions of the various actors involved. This mapping will also help you see where your own position might fit in and how you may need to focus your messages to shift key players’ positions. In some issues, there may be broad consensus for change, but there is rarely a consensus on how to make this change. In any policy change, there are winners and losers and different actors will defend the interests of certain constituencies in a policy debate, for example, war veterans, unions, teachers, private sector, or pensioners. In addition, there are usually ideological differences between the actors involved who seek to promote certain values, for example, nationalism, liberalism, protectionism, freedom of speech, or open society. In open systems, this leads to a healthy competition of ideas that is the foundation of the democratic system. In summary, mapping the actors’ positions is critical to planning an advocacy campaign with an aim to move the debate.1
Be aware of the interests and values different actors are defending and promoting.
The feasibility of your advocacy objective is also influenced by the level of consensus or conflict around an issue as this is often a predictor of how easily the process will move.2 Through the transition process, there has been a remarkably consensual liberal democracy and neo-liberal market-oriented reform agenda; in many countries in Central and Eastern Europe, whether by choice or under pressure from international organizations, these reforms have gone ahead without a huge amount of dissent.3 This is especially true where new technologies or approaches are introduced and policymakers are more ready to admit that they do not understand these areas and hence look for advice.4 Our cases on a Patients’ Bill of Rights in Macedonia and One Stop Shops in Kazakhstan are good examples of this type of consensual change.
Gauge the level of consensus or conflict on the target issue.
When conflict between actors does exist, you need to know the various positions being taken and understand why these groups are holding onto these positions. By trying to understand the incentives of the actors, you can work out how firmly entrenched they are in these positions and also if there is a chance to move them. You can also see where your argument would fit in the current debate and who might benefit from using it. On this basis, you need to consider whether it is in your interest to take that side, and more generally how to manage the strategic risk of entering the debate on either side (see section 6.5). Mapping helps you to see who are your natural allies in the debate and also may lead to reconsidering how you might present your argument. This is particularly relevant for organizations or networks that want to remain independent in such discussions.
The Mitrovica case is a good example of how to target entrenched positions.
Case 2: Kosovo (UNSCR 1244)
Reorganization of local administrative units in Mitrovica (2003–2006)
Think tank (European Stability Initiative)
Prior to the European Stability Initiative’s research and advocacy effort, the Serbian side demanded a separate municipality in the north of Mitrovica to protect them and their interests from what would be a large Albanian majority in a municipality comprising the whole town. At that time the Serbs were protected in the northern area by UN peacekeepers. There was little movement between the north and the Albanian-dominated southern area; many Albanian properties in the north were already sold and settled by Serbs.
On the Albanian side, they saw the demand for a separate administrative unit as an attempt to annex territory by Serbs wanting to keep a direct link to Belgrade even after the planned independence of Kosovo (UNSCR 1244). The loss of property was also an issue on both sides.
When the European Stability Initiative’s research convinced both sides that the town had no economic future beyond the crisis unless the two sides worked together, a new discussion began. Their proposal was to give the Serbs a separate municipality so that their interests would be well represented and that they would stay in the town, along with the hospital and university on the north side. However, it was proposed in return they must agree to freedom of movement between the north and south, the full return of property to Albanians in the north, and joint economic planning for the town. This allowed both sides to see the need from a local perspective of trying to find a solution to their problem that provided for a sustainable and equitable future. The proposal was agreed.
Advocacy planning checklist
Map the current positions of stakeholders for your advocacy plan:
- Is there broad consensus among the main players on this issue or is there conflict between various parties?
- What interests are various actors defending?
- What values are various actors promoting?
- Which players will more easily be convinced by your argument?
- How easily will the debate move or be settled?
- How entrenched are actors in their current position?
- How movable is their position and to what extent does their position need to move in order for you to move the process?
- Given the level of consensus or conflict you’ve identified, how achievable do you think your advocacy objective is?