6.5. Assess the strategic risk of the campaign

At this closing stage, you should have a solid idea of your way into the process, messenger, main target audiences, messages, activities and communication tools you will use. You have looked to open, continue, feed into, or steer a discussion, and thought about how to develop it in the short to medium term, but one thing that you still need to consider is how particular audiences will respond to your advocacy campaign. A crucial first step in thinking of potential responses is to consider the strategic risks of your planned campaign.

All advocacy interventions have some type of strategic risk: there are risks that opponents might react very negatively to your evidence and proposals, which could then have an adverse effect on the future reputation and sustainability of the organization or could even be a threat to your safety or freedom under more authoritarian regimes. For example, if you are a think tank depend for most of your work on commissions from a government or international organization, they may not appreciate it if you publicly criticize them. This should not necessarily deter you from publishing critical positions, but you need to think of the potential consequences of doing so, and consider whether the risk is worth it. Of course, if you are playing the role of whistleblower or watchdog in your advocacy efforts and are planning to hold actors accountable for their actions, the future of your organization depends on such strong, clear, evidence-based disclosure and there is no question in this case. However for most other organizations, considering these risks is a very important step in the advocacy planning process, and the assessment in this step should be a culmination of weighing up the factors that emerge throughout your mapping and planning in all elements of the Advocacy Planning Framework.

The Mongolian case gives an illustration of the risks that might be considered.

In addition to criticism, there are also potential risks of producing positions or evidence that seem to support people, organizations, or political positions that you really do not wish to be associated with. Considering policy decisionmaking as a “world of highly contested and contestable evidence,”¹ you need to be very clear in drawing the lines between research and policy proposals and crucially those who support or oppose them. In the highly politicized environments of the region, there is always a danger that your research or analysis can be adopted or co-opted by other players with whom who you do not wish to be affiliated. If you wish to remain an independent player, you will need to go back and continue to make clear where the line is between proposals and political support. Unwanted and unwarranted political affiliations are difficult to change after the fact and can damage the reputation of a researcher as an independent provider of research.

In terms of practical planning, you should reflect on the potential strategic risks of your planned advocacy campaign and consider the potential consequences and affiliations that may emerge. This may lead you to reconsider anything from the overall advocacy objective to the timing, the support needed, evidence or message focus.