By Paulina Cerdan Corona

Executive Director of the Center for Civic Collaboration

Civil society is a key player in the construction of a democratic and inclusive society that, among other things, has great value in contributing to the construction of public policies that address citizen needs and address complex public problems. In this brief essay, when I talk about civil society I am referring to those groups of citizens with some level of organization that act in a sustained manner in support of a cause linked to improving development and access to rights for the population.

In their contribution to these causes, social actors can choose to influence public policies as a course of action; these tools, by definition, are aimed at solving public problems. It is necessary to understand that influence is a medium-term strategy to move towards long-term social changes, whose definition combines three central factors (Aliar, n.d., 69-72): i) The state agenda, that is, the issues that are a priority for the competent authorities at a given time; ii) State capacities to respond to public problems, both at the level of technical, technological and human capacities; and iii) The characterization of social problems in the dimension of public conflicts, that is, as issues that attract sufficient attention, interest and traction from the multiple social sectors linked to their attention.

Now, for the purposes of organizations that decide to choose this course of action and consider that advocacy is a useful strategy to use for their causes and the achievement of their objectives, multiple questions arise: How is advocacy carried out? What capabilities or tools need to be developed and used? What good practices and lessons learned can we take up again?

Based on the analysis of a variety of experiences of civil society advocacy over the last 15 years in Mexico, in various topics and areas of action, we at the Civic Collaboration Center have identified 6 recommendations that may be key for those social actors who choose advocacy as a strategy to achieve their objectives.

Plan strategically

Generating a strategy involves: (i) an analysis of the context; (ii) a solid diagnosis of the problem or issue; (iii) a definition of clear and measurable objectives; and (iv) distinguishing between causes and consequences, in order to then move on to the formulation of action alternatives or concrete solution proposals for the identified problem and the development of a critical path with an activity plan. In addition, accompanying these planning exercises with monitoring elements that allow monitoring or even evaluating progress towards the objectives, what is learned along the way and what needs to be adjusted is extremely useful for making the execution of the processes of influence along the way more flexible in the face of circumstances and changes in the context.

Analysis of the actors

It is necessary to identify the target group or specific actors who are to be influenced and/or who have an interest in the issue that I will be promoting (authorities at different levels and powers, international actors, other actors from civil society or communities, actors from the private sector, the media, experts or academics, among others). In addition, it is necessary to analyze said actors to understand their interests and capacities (distinguishing between actors who decide, those who have veto power and/or those who have the capacity to influence, and those who can be allies at different times in my strategy). This analysis, beyond providing information for a robust analysis, is extremely useful for identifying the type of relationship to build with each identified interest group.

Construction of alliances and coalitions

What experience has shown us is that those who are most successful in influencing are coalitions; there are few references to groups or organizations achieving success in matters of advocacy on an individual basis. Interlocutors prefer to talk to someone who has already done the work of generating consensus with broader sectors, so that, in many ways, building alliances to make joint proposals is a profitable strategy in an advocacy process. In addition, it is an opportunity to widely show that the cause or objective being pursued works in the common interest. Finally, the construction of plural and broad coalitions is also a strategy that allows for the addition and combination of multiple resources (material and human), which it is not possible for a single actor or organization to gather on its own.

Proposals with technical and conceptual solidity

We refer to the coalition's ability to: (i) support the diagnosis of the problem with hard data, which convinces other actors that the problem is the problem; (ii) generate advocacy proposals that are based on hard data, in addition to being conceptually sound to the extent that they reflect citizen demand and have legal and institutional viability; and (iii) systematize and make complex issues accessible without losing technical soundness. This requires multiple skills at the level of research, generation and systematization of information, and inclusion of social actors to have both technical and social input in the process of defining proposals and when communicating them. The experiences of multiple civil society organizations have shown that, to the extent that coalitions come to the advocacy process with solid and legitimate proposals, they have a much greater probability that these will be adopted by the actors in question.

Communication and dissemination

For many organizations, communication in advocacy processes is a specific strategy within the advocacy process, which is adjusted and responds to the context and stage of the process (whether the problem is being made visible, or proposals are being made, or pressure is being exerted; the strategy is adjusted accordingly). Through proper management of media, platforms and other communication channels, it is possible to generate sympathies from different audiences, raise the quality of public debate and increase the political cost of opposing or obstructing a proposal. 

Dialogue and negotiation with authorities

Finally, this action basically materializes in designing and executing a negotiation strategy specifically focused on the authorities on which it is sought to influence. Promoting a negotiation in which the coalition and the authorities in question achieve their objectives, building and maintaining a relationship of collaboration and constant communication, including the plurality of political actors that need to be articulated for the proposal to work, designing and executing specific negotiation tables or technical work tables with specific rules and conditions that all actors agree on; these are all central actions in this component that is organic to political influence.

These recommendations represent a range of lessons and learnings from multiple actors to nourish those who decide to undertake this path of political influence, and with the aim of continuing to build collective experiences that allow us to address the most pressing public problems in our country. Considering that in this journey, the role of civil society and the strategies of agreement of multiple interests and social actors are central to strengthening democracy as a space of the common and from where we must create the common good day by day.