Challenging the Western Approach to Advocacy, Part 3

This week, am asking people I respect a tremendous amount to weigh in on some of the more contentious humanitarian issues, everything from the costs and benefits of advocacy to the question of neutrality and legitimacy.

Today's contributor is Neha Erasmus - her posts critique how many western-based organizations undertake advocacy.  Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is here.

For musings from this week's other contributors, see here.

Challenging the western approach to advocacy, part 3

There is also the question of the ‘naming and shaming’ approach that advocacy organisations take. This is a very Western approach to effecting change and again I think that it remains in the realm of the short-term solution; sometimes it works and sometimes it harms.

If we genuinely want to get governments to respect the rights of citizens, then we need to inspire them to do so, rather than shaming them when they don’t.

To truly effect change elsewhere, you must lead by example. As Western organisations, we must accept that we represent the West and Western values. We must therefore work to hold ourselves to account before we can turn to others with any real legitimacy.

One of the most common criticisms by people all over the world (see the BBC’s Have Your Say on the topic) of the ICC’s indictment of Bashir, simplistic as it may be, holds a great deal of truth: how can we hold Sudan accountable when we haven’t successfully held America or Britain or Israel accountable? We preach democracy but are we truly democratic?

The ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of advocacy in my view, like all things, depends on the manner in which it is done. I think advocacy organisations have a significant role to play in raising important issues with people who often do not know of a greater world with bigger problems.

Their role in forcing governments to act however is one that demands great caution. As we’ve seen in Darfur, advocacy organisations hold a great deal of responsibility for creating pressures for action that have worked counter to sustainable peace processes.

I think the Zapatista movement’s philosophy is one that advocacy organisations may wish to look at. While acting on their own issues, the Zapatista stress that each set of people must find their own way. They do not purport to have solutions for others, while they have solidarity with them. Through global dialogue they believe that different movements can help and learn from each other. Their slogan of “asking, we walk” is one that takes great care to always remember that we must never overestimate our capacity to know what is right. That however should not stop us from asking important questions.

[Photo from Neha Erasmus]