When contemplating how far representative, centralized, and pyramidal democracies have advanced in addressing social issues, we can imagine numerous possibilities in which social participation can revitalize the democratic process from an intersectional standpoint.

 

With this objective in mind, we seek to present a narrative description of the methodologies employed by BORDE in projects where we actively engaged in drafting legislative proposals and implementing public-involvement strategies to advocate for beneficial social change, particularly at the local level.

 

The examples and material developed throughout this paper are derived from the joint project with OXFAM, Fondo Semillas, and La Máquina del Teatro, in which we looked for capacity building in Puebla State organizations, intending to advance the local System of Care.

 

Hence, our ultimate goal is to contribute to the democratization of the knowledge required to design public policies and norms, as well as to facilitate social and collaborative participation in the resolution of public problems.

 

To achieve this goal, this paper is divided into three sections, each corresponding to a distinct methodology utilized by BORDE across different projects. The first section focuses on a methodology used to define a public problem and explore potential solutions before writing them down in axis, lines, and programs; in other words, this methodology is focused on designing a proposal of public policy. The second section regards a methodology that is centered on developing legislative proposals. Finally, the third section explains a methodology that focuses on public policy implementation and communication strategies.

 

These methodologies have emerged from the continuous facilitation of a wide range of participatory design processes that incorporate a) the integration of software design techniques aimed at improving the user experience of public institutions  (UX design), b) techniques of participant observation, and c)a diverse array of communication techniques. It is our toolbox: ever-evolving instruments that continue to improve day by day, project by project, deepening in new ways of doing politics from the BORDE; that is, bringing us to the edge of political spaces to articulate political reflections and take action to beneficial social change.

 

In order to construct a systemic vision of a public issue, and thereby possess the ability to address structural problems and foster comprehensive solutions, it is necessary to implement a process of public policy design as the starting point.

 

The initial phase of this process entails the identification of the public problem, based on the perceptions of those who directly experience it in their daily lives, and, as a result, we will require proposals for change. To identify the public problem we can employ a problem tree, which is implemented through collaborative dynamics in which people who are experiencing the problem or who use public-sector services are integrated into focus groups and workshops. This stage requires a careful formulation of the following concepts:

 

Central problem: This entails identifying the smallest number of the public problem, such as:

a) Inadequate attention to the causes and prevention of social conflicts.

b) Inadequate monitoring and research into social conflicts.

c) Government’s lack of capacity to handle social conflicts.

d) Insufficient capability to address the damage and restore social peace.

 

Direct causes: These are factors that exhibit an immediate relationship with the central problem. We must write the fewest number of options possible, and the relationship must be concise, evident, explicit, tangible, perceptible, and well-founded. For instance:

Central problem: “I’m thirsty” → Direct cause: “I lack access to water.” 

 

Indirect causes: Here, we record all the potential consequences of the direct causes, explaining why these direct causes exist. Example:

Direct cause: “I lack access to water” → Indirect cause 1: “I am far from a water source”, Indirect cause 2: “I do not have access to a water network.”

 

Visible effects: These are the observable symptoms of each direct cause, and they have discernible impacts in various domains:

• Physical (public, private, and natural).

• Social (conflict, inequality, mobility limitations).

• Political (governmental structure, access to public services).

• Economic (low production, wealth concentration, limited market dynamism, scarcity of resources).

• Communication (effects on social networks and media). 

Example: Direct cause: “I lack access to water” → Visible effect: dehydration.

 

Subsequent effects: These are long-term consequences stemming from each visible effect and indirect cause. They should be documented considering parameters affecting quality of life:

• Increase in income.

• Life expectancy.

• Education (literacy, school enrollment).

• Employment (employment rate, job quality).

• Health (access to health services, disease prevalence).

• Inequality (Gini coefficient, gender gaps).

• Environment (air and water quality, green spaces).

• Safety (crime rate, perception of safety).

• Subjective well-being (life satisfaction, happiness).

• Political freedom (civil and political rights, corruption).

• Housing (quality, affordability, access to basic services).

• Leisure (free time, access to recreational activities).

• Infrastructure (transport, communications).

• Social cohesion (support networks, civic participation).

• Access to public services (education, health, social security).

• Social mobility (opportunities for socioeconomic advancement).

• Cultural diversity (respect for diversity, tolerance).

• Sustainability (responsible resource use, sustainable development).

 

Following the aforementioned steps, it is feasible to construct a problem tree as illustrated below. This tool will aid us in transforming problems into solution proposals and subsequently employing a logical framework.

 

The following presents an example of a problem tree employed within the System of Care. In this instance, we will elaborate on Central Problem 1, which is stated as follows: 

 

 

Direct and Indirect Causes:

 

 

Contributing Factors to Causes:

 

Visible Repercussions and Underlying Effects:

 

Factors Contributing to Effects: 

 

In addressing problem 1, the transformation of problems into solution ideas encompasses the following:

Factors to consider in solution proposals:

 

Taking these proposals into consideration, we can construct the following logical framework matrix:

EXAMPLE:

To effectuate the transformation of problems into solution ideas in a Public Policy design, they must be organized into distinct axes, strategic lines, and programs.

• Axes: These represent the primary subject areas that will serve as the focal points of the strategy, aimed at addressing the central problem.

• Strategic lines: These encompass groups of programs that endeavor to implement each axis and provide responses to the direct causes identified.

• Programs: These are constituted by clusters of initiatives designed to address each indirect cause, visible result, underlying impact, or component identified during the analysis.

In this way, public policy writing might look like this:

The result is the following:

 

Based on the axes, lines, and programs, it is necessary to develop a Theory of Change proposal. This proposal will serve as a foundation for the development of a systemic diagram and completion of the information within the logical framework matrix. The Theory of Change consists of four columns:

1. Need for change: In the first column, each strategic line is articulated as a specific need for change.

2. Programs: In the second column, a concise summary of each program is provided, corresponding to the strategic line or need for change it addresses.

3. Key Organizations: The third column enlists possible civil society organizations that can collaborate with government institutions to implement each program effectively.

4. Key Institutions and Organizations: The fourth column presents potential government institutions responsible for the implementation of each program, along with a description of their functions.

LIST OF INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS:

1. Department of Education

● Implements the State’s caregiving program and incorporates care into basic education curricula.

● Establishes educational initiatives to promote awareness about the importance of caregiving.

● Develops profiles through competitions, certifications, and scholarships.

2. Department of Labor:

●  Deploys qualified labor inspectors to conduct inspections and ensure compliance.

● Ensures the organization, operation, and good governance of the Union of Caregiving Workers.

3. Social Welfare Department:

● Safeguards the well-being of individuals receiving care and caregivers.

4. Coordinating Committee of the State System of Care:

●  Ensures the effective functioning of all public institutions involved in caregiving initiatives.

5. Technical Secretariat of the State System of Care:

● Facilitates the development of public policies related to caregiving.

● Develops the information system and accountability platform.

6. State Complaint System:

●  Acts as a care center for caregivers, handling information, intelligence work, and complaint resolution.

7. Labor Court:

●  Sanctions irregularities in the caregiving sector.

8. Specialized Investigation Units:

●  Responds to complaints and proactively investigates cases of caregiver’s human rights violations.

Designs, evaluates, and enhances investigation protocols..

9. Department of Finance

●  Transfers labeled funds from the sector-generated taxes to the State Care Network, the Care Research Institute, and financing calls for Community Care Circles and Caregiver Organizations.

●  Defines the Budget Program included in the State income and expenditure project based on cost actuarial projection.

 

 

LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR FUNCTIONS

1. Community Circles of Care:

●  Facilitate dialogue and emotional support for caregivers.

● Promote reflection and exchange of good practices.

2. Care Workers Union:

● Advocates for and upholds the labor rights of care workers.

● Represents workers’ interests in laboral conflicts.

3. State Agency for the Promotion of Caregiving Organizations:

● Enhances organizational capacities within the caregiving sector.

●  Facilitates public financing projects to improve the sector.

4. State Care Network:

●  Integrates Community Care Circles and Caregiver Organizations.

●  Designs, maintains, updates, and publishes the quality standard for care services.

●  Facilitates workshops and conducts surveys to generate annual reports.

Similarly, the method applied to Axis 1 must now be extended to the Axes of Supervision, Reaction, and Well-being. Following this approach, we can define the relevant organizations and institutions and their respective functions to construct a comprehensive systemic map that integrates all four Axes:

 

.

At this juncture, it is crucial to emphasize the significance of crafting a problem tree in a well-structured and precise manner. Such an approach will facilitate a comprehensive analysis of the systemic diagram, elucidating the interactions among institutions and organizations. Alongside the formulation of clear and refined proposed solutions, equal attention must be devoted to the logical framework matrix. Particular emphasis should be placed on the axes, lines, and programs, in conjunction with the theory of change table, which plays a pivotal role in delineating the functions of these institutions and organizations.

 

Moreover, it is important to highlight that this process can be streamlined by utilizing a “natural language model with learning capacity”, to expedite the modification of terminologies, enabling a seamless transition from the problem to the policy phase.

Up to this point, the initial stage of developing a Public Policy has been successfully accomplished, and the subsequent step involves translating it into administrative regulations. To design these regulations, a “legislative technique” is employed, encompassing the drafting of an explanatory statement, a table of articles, a transitional regime, and the projection of a budget program. The problem tree becomes the statement of causes, and each cause should be supported by statistics. The table of contents is inherent in the description of each organization’s and institution’s functions. The transitory regime arises from the logical framework, but it must be transformed into an action plan to specify implementation dates or deadlines for institutional transformation. Finally, the budget program is developed based on actuarial cost projection research, which is required to budget the strategy implementation plan in broad categories.

Step 1. Return to the problem tree to convert it into an explanatory statement:

1.1 Example to shift the problem wording to an explanation statement:

 

In the same manner that we sought information to substantiate the existence of a public concern, we must justify the proposed solutions. If we have collected data up to this stage following the participatory design standards based on collecting the experience of users of public services (that is, the people who are affected by the problem), then the causes and effects will be entirely defensible. With reliable data at hand, the proposed solutions will aptly respond to the reality described, striking a fair balance.

 

Throughout this process, it is crucial to avoid any undue coercion in writing or exaggeration or dismissal of problems. As a result, the explanatory statement concludes by outlining the proposed solutions and identifying the current legal regulations that must be modified.

 

1.2 Example of shifting the suggested solutions to the explanatory statement:

In this manner, it is desirable, though not mandatory, for the statement of reasons to adhere to the following well-structured approach:

 

• IIntroduction: Provide a concise summary that highlights the legislative proposal’s focal issue and contextualizes the central problems illustrated in the systemic diagram.

• Background: Describe the underlying sources of the problem for users, including relevant sociodemographic information concerning its consequences and contributing elements.

• Object of the Law: Present a comprehensive description of the scope of the problems in a solution-oriented format. Emphasize the imperative for granting more authority to existing institutions and the necessity for establishing new ones.

• Structure: Elaborate on the new institutional framework utilizing the systemic diagram of institutions and social organizations, along with the broad outline of the public policy.

• Benefits: Articulate the anticipated benefits resulting from the law’s approval. Include a sociodemographic forecast of the anticipated criteria changes aimed at enhancing people’s quality of life, as well as the anticipated long-term impact on addressing each central problem.

• Legal foundations: Substantiate the necessity of the law by referencing human rights, the Constitution, relevant international treaties, jurisprudence, and related prevailing legislation.

• Conclusions: Offer a comprehensive conclusion summarizing the statement of reasons and defining the imperative for generating regulatory changes.

 

Step 2: Design an articulated chart:

The articulated chart involves the comprehensive examination of each public institution’s organic law, as previously described. During this process, it is necessary to verify if the proposed functions are appropriately included or need to be added. Consequently, the wording of articles in existing legislation may require additions or modifications. Additionally, it may become evident that the creation of a new law is imperative to establish an inter-institutional coordination system, along with laws governing equivalent systems.

Example: Table of articles to modify the Organic Law of the Public Administration of the State of Puebla, CHAPTER II, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT:

 

In this methodology, the development of an articulated chart is essential for each institution mentioned in the systemic diagram. This chart serves to define internal functions, spaces, and platforms for coordination and information exchange. The systemic diagram becomes a legislative cartography, guiding us through the necessary changes required for the optimal functioning of the institutional system. All legislative proposals must consider the regulatory body as a whole, acknowledging its interconnected parts, to generate systemic and structural change effectively.

 

It is important to note that this is only an initial attempt,  and changes should be discussed in an iterative process of continuous improvement. It means that we need to repeat the procedure several times, attempting to integrate changes each time, until we achieve a satisfactory outcome. This process entails the implementation of a truly democratic procedure.

 

Once the preceding steps have been completed, the Open Parliament procedure must be resumed. In this scheme, the process of drafting proposals is repeated three times, while the context analysis occurs twice, and the process of public dialogue must be implemented once. This iterative approach involves understanding the situation, developing proposals, validating their effectiveness in meeting needs, refining the phrasing, opening channels for dialogue, and ultimately enriching the final wording of the proposal based on the dialogue results.

 

We started with a participatory analysis of the public problem and the users’ systemic diagram, then developed the initial proposal and began developing the public advocacy plan concurrently. Then, we have to review whether the proposal responds effectively to the context by adding allies from social organizations, academia, and governmental institutions that implement the public policy; and we redraft a new proposal. Then, the implementation of the public advocacy strategy begins, and the public dialogue process opens presenting the second improved proposal to be evaluated by other interest groups (such as representatives of the Executive, political parties, entrepreneurs, and civil social organizations). The last step is to write a third and final proposal that integrates the modifications that resulted from the negotiation processes. 

 

To develop participatory legislative redaction processes, we can refer to the layers model, also known as the “onion model,” which is used in software development. Similarly, the main goal of this model is to separate the components that make up a complex system and divide them into different parts based on the interests of each one.

 

First of all, it is essential to understand the public problem, in the same way that software development seeks to know the needs of users (UX Design). In this case, for legislative drafting, the causes, effects, and factors must be identified through research, surveys, interviews, and focus workshops, among other participatory methods. It allows us to establish a solid base and regulations oriented to the real needs of people.

 

In the next layer, operators and academic experts on the matter are involved. As in the business logic layer in software development, these people contribute their technical and legal knowledge to define the necessary solutions and legal frameworks. In other words, their participation guarantees the coherence and technical quality of the proposed legislation.

 

As we move forward in the process, decision-makers, representatives, and legislators are incorporated, as well as entrepreneurs and other social organizations. Here, we look for the active participation of those who will be responsible for implementing and applying the laws, as well as those sectors that will be affected by the proposed regulations. Their contribution makes it possible to assess the feasibility of the legislative proposals.

 

In this collaborative process, it is also important to apply agile methodologies, such as SCRUM, and perform constant iterations that add new layers or actors and new components. In this way, we use an incremental and gradual approach, where progress is made progressively in legislation building by constantly reviewing the tree of problems. This instrument must become a constant exercise for any actor of change, from the definition to the redefinition of the problems a chain effect is generated. This chain effect leads to the suggestions being adjusted and improved as feedback is received from the various layers of actors involved. Using agile approaches helps us to progress incrementally and sustainably in the development of legislation, taking into account the demands and feedback of all stakeholders.  In this exercise,  the use of natural language models may be useful in bridging the gap created by technical and specialized language, allowing us to concentrate on what truly matters: addressing the Public Problem.

 

It is important to note that legislation is the last tool that should be used to solve a public problem. Therefore, we must exhaust the previous steps such as public policies and strategic planning of change projects. Thus, the factors that may justify the need to create a new law are:

 

●      Structural changes: Social, political, economic, or technological conditions are modified significantly.

●      Structural omissions: There are groups of people excluded from the protection of the existing laws or groups discriminated against by this legislation.

●      Confrontation with public policy: It means tha current regulations prevent the most efficient and humane flow of a process or public service.

 

Based on the above, the Open Parliament Process consists of three segments:

●      Context analysis: It refers to the participatory strategies necessary to define the public problem that generates a normative need.

●      Collaborative writing: It refers to the process of co-creation and consensus building from an intersectional perspective.

●      Public dialogue: It refers to facilitating spaces for dialogue and discussion to improve the regulatory proposal.

After formulating the regulations for the comprehensive system depicted on the map, it becomes imperative to develop a transitional regime. This entails creating an action plan and addressing the following question: How much time will institutions require to implement changes to their functions and adapt their structures and relationships accordingly? It is of utmost importance to thoroughly record all ideas discussed that would facilitate the successful implementation of the law. The fifth point in the public policy section labeled “Proposal writing” refers to the strategic plan; while it is not necessary to go into this level, it is crucial to notice that both techniques meet.

 

To draft the transitional regime, we can revisit the table of articles and incorporate an additional column:

 

The final stage in concluding the legislative process involves the budget impact analysis. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that the majority of initiatives presented in federal chambers and local congresses lack this supporting study. Conducting an actuarial projection of costs requires technical expertise beyond the scope of this paper. However, we recommend that another well-resourced national organization, be entrusted with carrying out this analysis through consultation or self-initiated research.

 

The next step in the participatory technique for legislation is called “Public Dialogue,” and it includes a variety of elements that stimulate engagement, transparency, and the exchange of ideas among the stakeholders participating in the regulatory proposal. Diverse perspectives and inclusiveness are critical here to ensure that the proposal is robust, fair, and contextually relevant.

 

1. Public hearings: These are open forums in which a diverse range of actors can discuss the proposal, provide their perspectives, knowledge, and experience, and raise key issues openly and publicly. It includes participation from community-based organizations, academics,  civil organizations, international cooperation agencies, authorities, legislators, and entrepreneurs.  These are spaces for discussions; thus it is expected to obtain videos, documents, and public materials.

 

2. Proposal dissemination:  We also need to guarantee that the topic will be placed in public opinion. This can be achieved through various communication channels, such as websites, newsletters, social media, and traditional media.

 

3. Use of surveys:When a significant portion of the population has already expressed opinions on the matter, it is essential to gauge the degree of approval or rejection of the proposed plan. Surveys or official consultations during elections can be employed to achieve this goal.

 

Closing the entire cycle of participatory legislation through public debate is desirable, but it demands a considerable investment of resources. Given that multiple issues compete for media attention, not every topic generates sufficient public interest to justify the expenditure. Consequently, in such circumstances, we recommend leveraging social networks or digital media to reduce costs and gauge the intentions for change.

 

An illustrative example is the “Titi Bot,” a program developed by BORDE, designed to conduct surveys via WhatsApp. This tool assesses citizens’ willingness to change their opinions regarding a legislative proposal and aids them in identifying politicians who best represent their interests. Moreover, it streamlines the examination of national legislation with the assistance of various professional groups, providing valuable decision-making information. The program’s launch is scheduled for January 2024.

Given that we currently have a draft legislation initiative based on the analysis of a public issue and its subsequent conversion into a public policy, it is critical that we begin the Public Advocacy Strategy, our third technique in this toolkit.

The first stage is to create a collaboratively drafted project, which we have already begun. At this point, it is time to include other change actors, but this requires understanding the logic that drives each actor and its context. It also demands a strategy and, eventually, creating well-structured articulation spaces with very clear objectives. Having said that, adding other layers comprised of other actors necessarily implies a risk, a possibility of cooptation of what has been a constructive social process, which, if not carried out in order, can be diluted in the sea of multidimensional interests that characterizes congresses and legislative powers.

Adding other actors, on the other hand, signifies a potential to grow, nourish, and strengthen the change project. When a proposal is examined with a fresh counterpart, the problem can be seen from several angles, and therefore new knowledge is gained. To take advantage of them, they must be ordered, which we can do with our problem tree, systemic map, and articulated table. The public incidence strategy in legislative power begins with a context analysis, and the first stage is to establish the regions that we want to influence. The initial reasoning leads us to believe that if we have a regulation proposal, we should target the legislative branch. but nothing could be further from the truth. Although it should be so.

The public advocacy strategy aims to influence public opinion and decision-makers to promote change through a variety of strategies such as media and social media campaigns, public events, protests or marches, and public petitions. The segmentation of advocacy spaces enables us to identify the area in which we will carry out the intervention, the people with decision-making capacity whom we want to influence, define what we expect from them, and assess what we have and what it takes to convince them; all of this to determine the strategic alliances required to carry out the advocacy strategy.

 

The spaces of advocacy are boundless: State and Federal Institutions, International Organizations, Cooperation Agencies, Unions, Social Movements, and More. This list is not exhaustive, and accordingly, it should be continuously expanded and adapted to the project’s specific requirements

The next crucial step involves the “Mapping of Actors,” which involves applying the SWOT analysis technique (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to individuals in decision-making positions within the institutions identified in the systemic map and those associated with the incidence spaces from the previous table. This includes social organizations dedicated to the problem as well as all sectors with a vested interest.

To accomplish this, it is recommended to gather information in a table or chart with 12 columns:

• Description (Column 1): Provide essential details such as name, age, sexual preference, social class, occupation (profession, education, or titles earned), and significant achievements or positions.

• Trend Value (Column 2): Rate between 5 and -5 how politically progressive or conservative the person considers him o herself.

• Strengths (Column 3): List the capabilities, encompassing knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

• Alliances (Column 4): Identify potential allies by writing down their names.

• Weaknesses (Column 5): Recognize any limitations or areas where knowledge, skills, or attitudes are lacking.

• Detractors (Column 6): Note the names of individuals who might act as adversaries.

• Classification (Column 7): Outline the possible opportunities and threats that each actor represents for the normative project.

• Place Value (Column 8): Assign a value between 5 and -5 based on the level of support, neutrality, or opposition you anticipate from them regarding the regulatory project.

• Influence (Column 9): Provide potential reasons that indicate the economic, political, or social influence of each actor.

• Economic Influence (Column 10): Assign a value between 5 and -5 to determine the economic influence.

• Political Influence (Column 11): Assign a value between 5 and -5 to assess the political influence.

• Social Influence (Column 12): Assign a value between 5 and -5 to evaluate the social influence.

This meticulous mapping process will provide invaluable insights into essential stakeholders, empowering us to devise more effective strategies and propel the normative project towards successful implementation. 

Once the actors have been thoroughly mapped, it becomes imperative to establish a clear narrative structure for each one. This could be achieved by employing the Marshall Ganz storytelling technique, an approach used in communication to convey effective messages and mobilize individuals towards collective action.

The power of storytelling lies in its ability to connect with people emotionally and convey essential messages. By humanizing these stories, we can build empathy and motivate action. It is important to have the knowledge generated in our problem tree, logical framework, and theory of change on hand for this. Here’s a structured approach to crafting personal, community, and history of now stories

Personal Story:

Step 1: Share the moment when you realized the urgency to address the problem, what pushed you to take action.

Step 2: Describe your experiences leading up to that moment, how the problem evolved, and how it impacted you personally.

Step 3: Explain the action you decided to take to confront the problem and the determination that fueled your decision.

 

Community Story:

Step 1: Provide an overview of the group affected by the same problem, describing the extent of its impact on their lives and their willingness to find a solution.

Step 2: Narrate the actions taken by your community as a whole to address the problem, highlighting the power of unity and collaboration.

Step 3: Describe the positive outcomes resulting from your community’s efforts and how it positively impacted the lives of those involved.

 

Story of Now:

Step 1: Identify the external factors that hinder your community from resolving the problem, such as contributing factors and the problem’s scope and growth.

Step 2: Explain the potential negative consequences if the problem remains unsolved, both for your community and society at large.

Step 3: Paint a vivid picture of how your life and your community’s life would change with the implementation of a solution, emphasizing your potential to contribute to society’s development.

Step 4: Showcase how key actors in advocacy spaces have the opportunity to support the necessary changes for you and your community in a positive and constructive manner.

 

By framing your stories in this manner, you may establish a strong emotional connection with your audience, allowing them to better understand the difficulties you confront and inspiring them to act and support your cause. To develop empathy and inspire genuine change, remember to be sincere, concise, and humble in your storytelling.

 

Strategic communication relies on well-crafted key messages to ensure clarity, consistency, and emotional connection with the target audience. These messages play a crucial role in guiding the organization’s discourse and prompting specific actions. To design effective key messages for each actor, the following steps are essential:

• Understanding the Stakeholders: Before crafting key messages, it’s crucial to gain a deep understanding of the key stakeholders or groups. Knowing their interests, motivations, and perspectives will enable more targeted and relevant communication.

• Identify Shared Objectives and Goals: To foster stronger relationships and improve message effectiveness, identify common ground and shared objectives with stakeholders or key groups. Aligning messages with these objectives will enhance engagement and receptivity.

• Use Clear and Concise Language: Key messages must be clear, concise, and easily understandable. Avoid jargon or technical language, ensuring that the messages resonate with the audience and leave no room for misinterpretation.

• Tailor Messages to Specific Needs: Tailoring key messages to address the specific needs and concerns of stakeholders or groups is vital. This personalization will make the messages more relevant and impactful, as they address the unique interests of each audience.

• Utilize a Wide Variety of Media: Employing a diverse mix of media channels is essential to reach a broader audience. Utilize print, digital, audio, and visual media to engage different demographics effectively. Consider compact print media for older audiences and newer digital platforms for younger audiences.

• Continuous Reinforcement: Repetition and reinforcement of key messages throughout the advocacy process are key to ensure understanding and retention by stakeholders and groups. Consistent messaging helps solidify the core points in the minds of the audience.

It is important to note that the provided examples are just starting points, and the messages must be customized to suit each unique situation and the actors involved. A tailored repertoire should be developed for each group of key actors, considering input from the actor mapping process. Effective communication relies on empathy and clarity, ensuring that the messages resonate and yield the desired results. However, before engaging in strategic alliances, a thorough assessment of available capacities, required assistance, and potential partners is crucial.

The process of building strategic alliances involves fostering cooperative relationships among diverse individuals, organizations, institutions, and groups to achieve common objectives. These alliances can span across non-governmental organizations, government institutions, private companies, civil society groups, and more. The goal is to harness a range of skills, resources, and perspectives to effectively tackle complex problems that demand collective and multidimensional action.Strategic alliances are critical for increasing success possibilities, especially when dealing with complicated situations that necessitate collaborative and multidimensional action.

The articulation of these alliances encompasses several essential stages, including:

• Identification: Mapping actors with shared interests serves as a reference point to identify those with the requisite resources, knowledge, and skills needed to achieve the objectives.

• Formalization of the Alliance: This step involves formalizing the partnership through collaboration agreements, defining roles and responsibilities, and crafting a joint work plan.

• Alliance Management: Regular communication, conflict resolution, action coordination, and progress evaluation are vital aspects of effectively managing the alliance.

• Evaluation and Adjustment: Regular evaluations of the alliances are necessary to gauge their effectiveness and make any necessary adjustments to ensure continued success.

A well-articulated strategic alliance can significantly enhance an organization’s ability to influence policy, broaden its reach, strengthen its legitimacy, share risks and costs, and amplify its overall impact.

To initiate the process of alliance formation, it is essential for the group of people and organizations involved to engage in an exchange of negotiation techniques, approach methods, and collectively design an incidence plan. Beginning with small and unilateral planning allows potential allies to easily grasp the purpose of the alliance and lays the groundwork for projecting the Strategic Plan for Public Advocacy.

Subsequently, the next crucial step involves presenting the proposals to key actors. It is important to acknowledge that not all key stakeholders will be in immediate agreement with our proposals. Negotiation, as an interactive process wherein parties with distinct interests and perspectives seek common ground, becomes paramount during this phase. Political negotiations often entail uncertainty and may involve both converging and divergent interests. However, if the stakeholder mapping has been done correctly, a clear understanding of each party’s expectations can be obtained. Armed with this knowledge, the alliance can strategically highlight relevant information, minimize certain aspects, and share or delve deeper into specific details to facilitate dialogue and achieve the desired objectives.

Here are some of the strategies for negotiations that are used in political, social, and economic contexts:

• Collaboration: This technique involves fostering a cooperative approach by engaging all parties in the proposal’s design process. By encouraging active participation and taking into account everyone’s interests and needs, collaborative negotiation leads to joint solutions that gain widespread acceptance.

• Inception: This technique aims to create a sense of ownership in the decision makers by strategically introducing parts of the proposal through trusted channels. When the counterpart perceives the idea as their own, they are more likely to be receptive to it during the negotiation.

• Logical Reasoning: The use of logical arguments and empirical data to support the proposal adds credibility and objectivity to the negotiation. By relying on sound reasoning and evidence, both parties can better understand the basis of the proposal.

• Active Listening: Active listening involves not only hearing the other party’s perspective but also demonstrating understanding by summarizing and repeating key points. This approach ensures that both sides are on the same page and helps to build rapport.

• Win-Win Solutions: The win-win technique focuses on presenting the proposal as mutually beneficial for all parties involved. The aim is to find solutions that satisfy everyone’s interests, fostering a positive and cooperative negotiation environment.

• Empathy and Understanding: Acknowledging and validating the needs and viewpoints of the other party while expressing one’s own position clearly and empathetically promotes understanding and trust. This empathetic approach paves the way for constructive dialogue.

• Offering Multiple Options: By presenting various alternatives, negotiators can increase the likelihood of finding a solution acceptable to all parties. This technique fosters flexibility and demonstrates a willingness to explore different possibilities.

• Using Inquiry instead of Assertion: Instead of making declarative statements, using open-ended questions with supporting information can encourage dialogue and invite the other party to express their perspectives. This approach allows for a more interactive negotiation process.

• Recognizing Contributions: Acknowledging and valuing positive ideas from the other party, and showing how they relate to one’s own proposal helps build trust and fosters a sense of respect for each other’s contributions.

When negotiating, adhering to certain principles and strategies can significantly enhance the chances of a successful outcome. Here are some improved points to keep in mind during the negotiation process:

• Flexibility and Patience: Recognize that negotiation is a dynamic process that requires time and patience. Be open to adapting your position and considering new options or solutions to find common ground.

• Thorough Preparation: Ensure sufficient preparation by understanding both your interests and needs and those of the counterparty. This knowledge forms the foundation for constructive dialogue and potential agreement.

• Mutual Gain, Not Winning or Losing: Shift the perspective from winning or losing to finding mutually beneficial outcomes. Focus on building a relationship and defining agreements and disagreements collaboratively.

• Trust and Respect: Emphasize trust and respect as the pillars of any successful negotiation. Active listening is crucial for understanding the counterparty’s perspective, limitations, and opportunities, and fostering a positive relationship.

• Negotiating in Good Faith: Always negotiate with integrity and honesty, avoiding deceptive or manipulative tactics. Communicate your intentions to build trust and foster a cooperative negotiation environment.

• Dialogue, Not Debate: Approach negotiation as a dialogue, not a debate. Avoid opposing or imposing positions aggressively, as this may lead to defensive responses and hinder progress.

• Identify Common Interests: Rather than creating lists of non-negotiable points, focus on identifying areas of common interest. Leave contentious issues open for discussion, allowing for flexibility and creative problem-solving.

• Embrace Patience: In sociopolitical processes, rushing is not always necessary. Demonstrate patience and avoid putting unnecessary pressure on the negotiation, as it can impede progress.

• Build Relationships for Future Negotiations: Even if the current negotiation doesn’t lead to immediate success, maintaining a positive relationship can pave the way for future negotiations and cooperation.

By incorporating these principles and strategies, negotiators can foster a collaborative and respectful environment that leads to more successful and satisfying outcomes for all parties involved.

 

This dialogue is a great example of effective negotiation techniques that can lead to successful outcomes. It highlights the importance of empathy, the “win-win” approach, offering options, and reinforcing positive dispositions. Negotiation is exciting since it is what makes proposals a reality. As a result, the following principles must be included:

• Assertive communication: Entails clearly expressing one’s own arguments, active listening, and sympathetic understanding.

• Ethics and transparency: Encourage the definition of their own ethical line as well as the counterpart’s, and create trust from there. What are they unable to do?

• Value creation: No one possesses the perfect truth; you don’t win or lose; you must begin with a willingness to explore various solutions in a creative and collaborative manner.

• Conflict Resolution: Accept the fact that conflict will always exist and define it. Create simple criteria for decision-making and solution prioritization.

• Storytelling and Information: Combine quantitative and qualitative information while grounding it in your experiences and story is an effective way to communicate complex ideas and foster deeper understanding.

Before entering a negotiation, it is highly beneficial to internalize the following four phrases, preferably by repeating them out loud:

• “I have prepared myself thoroughly and understand not only my objectives but also those of the other party.”

• “This negotiation is an ongoing process with no clear winners or losers, but rather a quest for mutually beneficial outcomes.”

• “Building trust takes time and effort, and I must be mindful not to undermine it through hasty actions or decisions.”

• “I will embrace silence during the negotiation, allowing myself the necessary time to think before responding.”

During the negotiation, adopting a process of active listening can be enhanced by organizing the exchange of information into four distinct categories:

1. Make Visible the Need for Change: This involves exposing and defining the shared problems and the necessity for action. By understanding the problem from the perspective of the other party, we can identify common ground for collaboration.

2. Persuade about Relevance: Focus on emphasizing the magnitude of the problem and its wider implications. By delving into the visible and underlying effects of the problem, we can help the other party see the significance of finding a solution.

3. Project Convenience: Highlight the benefits and advantages that implementing the proposed solution would bring. Presenting these benefits in terms of potential improvements in quality of life and the positive impact on the larger population can resonate with the other party’s interests and objectives.

4. Demonstrate Inconvenience: Point out the potential negative consequences of inaction or delayed action. By highlighting the risks and costs of not addressing the problem, we can emphasize the importance of finding a resolution.

To effectively close a negotiation meeting, it is essential to summarize and recap the key points discussed. Developing notes using a framework or table that integrates the four categories can provide a clear and structured overview of the negotiation outcomes.

Here is a simulated table of a negotiation on the Care System Law:

 

This table provides a structured and comprehensive representation of the contributions and perspectives of both parties in the negotiation, facilitating a clear understanding of areas of agreement and disagreement.

Herb Cohen, in his book “You Can Negotiate Anything,”  emphasize the negotiability of various aspects of life, highlighting the importance of information, time, and power in effective negotiations. Moreover, the emphasis on ethics and fairness underscores the significance of seeking mutually beneficial solutions.

In the context of an advocacy strategy, diverse approaches can be employed depending on specific stakeholders and the overall context. Some examples include:

• Social Bonding: Establish direct contact and schedule meetings with key decision-makers to build personal relationships and foster understanding of the advocacy issue.

• Communication Strategies: Utilize digital and traditional media channels to disseminate affirmative messages to key stakeholders, raising awareness and support for the cause.

• Public Events: Organize events that provide exposure and positioning opportunities for key players, allowing them to engage directly with the advocacy initiative.

• Community Mobilization: Demonstrate the existence of strong social support behind the proposal, highlighting widespread backing and minimal opposition, making it politically advantageous.

• Strategic Litigation: Present evidence that the proposal is legally viable and profitable by referencing relevant judicial decisions that have already been made in similar contexts.

• Research and Publication: Generate compelling data and synthesized evidence in easily digestible operational documents (e.g., cards or one-pagers) that decision-makers can share without compromising the integrity of the information.

It is important to note that these methods are not mutually exclusive and can often be more effective when combined. Flexibility is key in the advocacy strategy, and the careful combination of these outreach methods ensures comprehensive coverage of all mapped actors.

The foundation for the public advocacy strategy is laid during the analysis of the context. When defining the strategy, criteria are established to determine how, when, and for what purpose the pieces on the board will be moved. The culmination of this planning results in the Advocacy Plan, which includes the map, messages, and negotiation strategies, all organized on a timeline with specific dates for execution.

A strategic plan for public incidence is a comprehensive document that outlines the objectives, activities, deliverables, required resources, assigned responsibilities, and timeframes for implementation. This plan serves as a roadmap for the initiative and forms the basis for the following key elements:

• Regulations and Coexistence: The plan establishes clear guidelines and protocols for the implementing team or collective to ensure effective collaboration and harmonious coexistence. This includes defining rules of engagement, decision-making processes, conflict resolution mechanisms, and promoting a positive working environment.

• Organizational Structure: A well-defined organizational structure is outlined, detailing the relationships, functions, areas, units, roles, and responsibilities within the team or collective. Clear communication channels are established to facilitate seamless information flow and enhance cooperation among members.

• Resource Management Mechanisms: The plan addresses the efficient administration of human, financial, material, and technological resources. It includes strategies for resource allocation, utilization, and tracking to optimize the impact of the initiative while managing costs effectively.

• Information Management and Review: Robust mechanisms for information management are implemented to ensure that deliverables are reviewed and assessed regularly. These processes promote continuous improvement, foster collective learning, and strengthen the group’s cohesion.

 

A people-centered monitoring and evaluation plan is vital for the success of a public advocacy strategy. Celebrating achievements publicly is essential, as it shifts the focus from what was lacking to acknowledging accomplishments and identifying areas of opportunity for the next round of advocacy. The collective victory achieved is directly proportional to the quality of the relationships and work networks established during the process. Every contributor should feel valued and appreciated, as this will foster continued engagement as the advocacy cycle closes, and the next round begins.

 

To strengthen relationships among participants and ensure effective monitoring and evaluation, the following components should be incorporated into the plan:

Assess:

 

• Analyze Process, Result, and Impact Indicators: Evaluate the progress of activities, detail the objectives achieved as per the advocacy plan, and project potential social change resulting from the proposed legislation.

• Closing Report: Publish a comprehensive report documenting progress, including analysis documents, systematic documentation of workshops, surveys, interviews, and an account of resource investment.

Improve:

 

• Identify Areas of Opportunity: Reflect on processes to more effectively project expected results, objectives, and goals for future advocacy efforts.

• Feedback: Gather input through surveys, interviews, and workshops from participants to enhance methods, techniques, and processes for better advocacy outcomes.

Thank:

 

• Public Recognition: Recognize and appreciate individuals and groups who made significant contributions to the strategy, publicly acknowledging their efforts and impact.

• Closing Events: Organize coexistence gatherings or celebratory events to bring participants together beyond work and negotiation spaces, fostering a sense of community and camaraderie.

• Follow-Up: Keep all participants informed about the progress and results of the strategy, demonstrating gratitude and respect for their involvement. This inclusive communication approach encourages ongoing engagement and participation in future advocacy rounds.

GO AHEAD

AND GO AGAIN