The Power of Movements
|
Imagine an international development funding scenario in which the following were obligatory:
1. For every dollar spent on the development of a new vaccine or drug, an equivalent dollar has to be spent in support of networking by and for a movement of people who are directly affected by the health issue that is the focus of that drug. For example, when the Gates Foundation announce US $130 million for malaria vaccine development, they also need to announce and provide $130 million for a network and movement of families and communities affected by malaria. 2. For every dollar spent by an international organisation on public and media relations (including policy advocacy), they have to contribute the same level of resources (no strings attached) in support of a high-profile voice for the people directly affected by the issues their work focuses on. The UNICEF media relations budget, for example, must be matched by a financial contribution (no strings) to a movement of children and parents in developing countries so that their voice (which may be disparate and inconsistent) can be heard loud and clear on the key issues affecting them.
3. No international development decision-making forum is considered legitimate unless a majority of the people making the decisions are themselves directly affected by the issue in question. So the majority at every HIV/AIDS forum, for example--from UNAIDS and UN special sessions to national coordinating mechanisms and local HIV/AIDS groups--needs to be people living with and/or affected by HIV/AIDS. The chance of these proposals being adopted is of course remote. But they touch the sharp edges of international development--technical development, funding, decision-making, and organisational advocacy--and highlight how far away most international development is from the core elements necessary for long-term effective change. As I have previously argued, the current predominant model for international development based on SI = T x I x F (where SI = Sustainable Impact, T = Technical Assistance, I = a specific Intervention, and F = Funding) at best is struggling and at worst has failed. But there is another model--hinted at by the proposals above. A different change model We need to derive a change model from some of the most successful non-violent change processes in world history. An equation drawing from those experiences might look as follows: degree of SI = level L x scale V x focus A. Here SI is Sustainable Impact, L is the level of Leadership by people most affected by the issue, V is the strength of their Voice in debate and decision-making fora, and A is the issue’s resonance with local development Agenda priorities. In other words, the degree of sustainable long-term impact of any development action is proportional to the level of leadership by people immediately affected, multiplied by the scale of public debate and private dialogue, multiplied by the extent to which the issue is a “local” action priority. A high score on these three factors means a high likelihood of long-term sustainable impact—and a low score implies low likelihood. This is very different from the predominant theory that appears to drive most development action from the perspective of major international agencies and governments. What makes successful movements? Where does “degree of SI = level L x scale V x focus A” come from? How is it justified? What are the implications for investment in development and communication? There has been no sustainable, effective social movement in which the following components have not been central: leadership from among the people most affected; a strong and independent voice in debate, dialogue and decision-making by people most affected; and the people most immediately involved defining and agreeing the agenda. Reflect on such movements as the women's movement, anti-apartheid, civil rights, anti-globalisation, anti-racism, anti-GM, anti-FGM (female genital mutilation), Jubilee 2000, environmentalism, non-violent independence struggles, gay and lesbian rights, land rights, so-called ethnic minorities, peace movements, and many others--North and the South, and crossing and joining that divide. Successful movements have internal leadership, a powerful voice for the perspectives of those most affected, and a strong people’s role in agenda setting and decision making. These are intrinsic components of what makes movements successful and their results sustainable.
This is not to suggest that we do not develop new vaccines and other scientific solutions to some very serious development issues. Of course we should. But those “solutions” will work only in combination with social movement processes. These social-movement-focused change principles tend to be “poo-poohed” by many, particularly by senior decision-makers. They often search for the simple, low-cost, globally applicable, easy-to-administer, high-proven efficacy answer. Talk of people, change, movements, communities, dialogue, debate, and participation is regarded as “wishy-washy”, loose, ill-formed and unable to be assessed. I would challenge such decision-makers to stand in front of the leaders of the social movements that have made such significant changes in our lives and say to their faces: "Hey, Martin Luther King, Mahatma . . . It will never work.” Social movement elements are not priorities to fund and support in international development because international development issues are considered technical problems requiring technical solutions. Lessons from health Nowhere is this perspective stronger than in health. Consider, HIV/AIDS, for example. In dealing with HIV/AIDS, the countries/communities with the highest levels of internal leadership, public debate, private dialogue, spontaneous local action and local challenging of existing social practices and prejudices have done best--gay communities, Uganda, Thailand. L, V and A (see above) are present in large quantities. Without the People Living with AIDS movement, for example, there would be much less vaccine development--many pharmaceuticals having got out a long time ago. By contrast, what is happening to child health in northern India and northern Nigeria? We have many of the technical answers in child health--high-efficacy, simple, low-cost, provable interventions, the most admired of which is immunisation. Case closed? No. Immunisation rates in many parts of the world are going down. In northern India and northern Nigeria they are plummeting with predictions of disastrous consequences. Why? Because the scientific answer has come up against a movement of people. Outsiders can call these people misguided and ill-informed. But local people taking local leadership (L), voicing their perspectives (V), framing debate and dialogue on their terms and developing their own agendas (A) have inflicted severe damage on immunisation rates. We only have ourselves to blame. By ignoring those same principles when developing and implementing child health programmes, we have laid a weak foundation--a base slab that is easily turned on its side when a group of people say “We think those immunisations are also sterilising our girls or causing other illnesses”, no matter how untrue the allegations may be. So by all means develop AIDS and malaria vaccines, but do not expect them to work by themselves. A new role for communications? Communicators are conventionally asked to help "sell" the intervention, promote the technical support, and raise the funds. These roles are important but do not play to the real strengths that communicators can bring. Imagine--or observe--the communication role with a social movement paradigm guiding the strategic thinking. In such cases communication is of central importance for local leadership (L), crucial to getting the voices of those most affected into public debate and decision-making (V), and indispensable for creating and shaping locally driven agendas (A). The subtle textures of international development require a deeper and more nuanced approach. How do we move these agendas? Warren Feek is Director of The Communication Initiative. A longer version of this article originally appeared in The Drum Beat. --- OneWorld Guest Editorials represent the viewpoint of the authors and not necessarily that of the OneWorld Network. Read and comment on previous Guest Editorials. If you would like to contribute or suggest a future OneWorld Guest Editorial, please contact miles.litvinoff@oneworld.net or josie.kirby@oneworld.net. |
Printable version
Back to top
