Home : Our Work : For Minorities :  ...

Information for campaigners

What is a campaign?

A campaign is a combined series of actions aimed at bringing about a specific goal.

The most successful campaigns are normally geared towards a specific goal, are well-organized and time limited.

There are four keys to success in campaigning:

1. a single-minded focus on a
2. goal which delivers the desired change, which is
3. achievable, and
4. the goal must determine the methods, not vice versa.

In minority rights, we campaign for the implementation of specific rights that are not being implemented. Therefore we are campaigning for change.

Deciding on a campaign

The starting point for a campaign is what change is needed? How can this be turned into a focused and achievable goal? This requires an assessment of the root causes of the failure to implement rights, what it will take to implement the goal, who needs to implement it and how they can be persuaded to do so. Changes in circumstances (e.g. EU accession) should be taken into account. Note that even goals that seem very ambitious and not difficult to achieve, may be possible if the campaign is large, well-resourced and/or long enough.

Setting aims

A successful campaign needs a clear, measurable, simple goal. Successful campaigns are those with goals that are easy to understand but meaningful, such as: ending segregation in education; banning land mines; dropping the debt; etc.

Consultation and knowledge is needed before setting an aim, in particular to ensure it is important and that it is a minority rights issue. Consulting minorities is the first step, to find out what issues are important to them - and you must consult both women and men beneficiaries, not just partners - but the process must go further, with an assessment of the entire situation, what the minority rights issue is and ensuring it is an issue that will have a positive effect on women, and what specifically should be done to remedy it.

Classic mistake 1 - too vague

Many campaigns fail because the goal is too vague. E.g. 'Equality for the Roma' is meaningless. Everyone can nod sagely and agree, but it does not require anyone to do anything. 'Ending segregation in education for the Roma' is better, but still too broad for anything more than a very long-term campaign. 'Stopping Roma children being sent to separate and inferior schools in Slovakia in 2005' is specific, and achievable.

Classic mistake 2 - worthy but not important

International organizations often aim at issues of show rather than substance, such as declarations (by the UN or others). At best these can only be stages towards real change, but do not automatically lead to change in themselves. A campaign goal should be real change that affects people's lives, especially the poor and marginalized.

In ending conflict, 'getting people to talk' is often seen as an end in itself. But simply getting people to talk without producing any concrete results can make a situation worse. A campaign should aim to end the cause of the conflict, and talking is only a means to this end.

You need to talk to many members of minority groups - women and men, not just the leaders - to find out what change is required. However, be aware that many people may have an unrealistic expectation of what could bring about change, such as thinking an international declaration will be enough to bring about change.

Identifying beneficiaries

MRG works for minority rights, so the beneficiaries are clear, but we must always be aware that the beneficiaries should be all members of the community, and not simply the leaders or our partners.

Normally we would campaign with the beneficiaries - women and men.

However, you should also be aware that the most effective campaigns are those where a clear benefit can be shown to others as well, such as a majority community (e.g. through increased stability, economic development, ending of conflict, etc).

In determining campaign goals, discussion with the communities is vital, but not in itself enough. At all times the key issues of achievability, importance and whether the issues are minority rights must be considered.

Classic mistake 3 - needs not rights

MRG campaigns for minority rights, and one of our most powerful campaigning tools is to point out that these are legal entitlements, which authorities are bound to grant. Therefore, it is important that we only campaign for minority rights. Classic errors in consultation are to confuse rights with wants and needs. Wants are those desires stated by those you consult with, which may or may not be rights. Needs are objective issues that a community requires, but again may or may not be rights. E.g. everyone needs food, employment income and shelter, but these cannot necessarily be guaranteed in full nor are they minority rights issues per se (ending discrimination in their provision is).

Identifying targets

When planning a campaign you must identify your targets. These are the people with the power to bring about the goal (i.e. implement the minority right).

Usually these are officials, governments, sometimes donors. It is those with power. In identifying your targets, it is useful to have 'the Minister for Home Affairs' as your target, not 'the government'.

Targets should be clearly separate from those with the power to influence them (secondary targets, see below).

At the same time as deciding on the target, an assessment should be made as to what needs to be done to persuade the target to act. This may determine that a goal is unachievable (although even the most recalcitrant governments can eventually be persuaded to act differently by successful campaigns).

Classic mistake 4 - targeting the friendly rather than the powerful

The key to achieving change is ensuring you are targeting the people with the power to bring about change, rather than those you know are sympathetic to your cause. E.g. it may be easy to get agreement from people working on human rights within governments, but they may have no power to bring about change. Similarly, it is important to be aware that in Europe, the body that is most listened to is the EU, not the Council of Europe, OSCE or UN.

Campaigning

Having determined your goal, targets and beneficiaries, you can proceed to campaign to bring about the goal. Three words are vital throughout:

• Persuasion, not information

The supreme classic mistake

Many assume that providing people with information will necessarily cause them to act. This does not work, whether the information is in the form of a publication, press article or training session. Remember, the right is not being implemented for a reason and the reason is almost never a lack of awareness or information. Even when this is given as a reason it is common to find that other powerful vested interests benefit from the way things are. You have to persuade people to change what they are or are not doing, and this involves overwhelming those vested interests or providing them with a course of action that will enable them to 'save face' while retreating from their position (ie win-win).

To do that, you must answer the question: why is the right not being implemented? This will allow you to choose the best mixture of methods to ensure that it is.

At all times, remember that human rights (including minority rights), have three powerful bases which can be used as a basis for your argument. Different people will be persuaded at different times by different styles.

1. Moral - Minority rights is about 'doing the right thing', promoting diversity, non-discrimination, and stopping genocide and other horrors. Most people would like to think that they are on the right side, and this sort of argument is therefore powerful when appealing to the general public.
2. Legal - Minority rights are also laws, and states/officials that respect the rule of law can be persuaded by this. Increasingly, this is also appearing in many public opinion debates (e.g. the war in Iraq).
3. Practical - Often the most powerful argument is simply appealing to people's practical sense. Minority rights are often in everyone's interest - they prevent conflict, promote stability and make development much more effective. Think about what the person/organization you are trying to persuade wants to achieve. Can you persuade them that doing what you propose would help them?

Methods

Although these methods are described singly, many work best in combinations and will mutually reinforce each other; e.g. direct lobbying, plus media and public opinion work; litigation, plus direct and indirect lobbying, plus media work; training, plus direct lobbying etc. There are about 50 different combinations with different characteristics fitting different situations. Note that in some instances one method may interfere with another; e.g. the training of officials and direct lobbying of a sympathetic government may be derailed by media work, especially if the latter is critical.

Direct lobbying

This is going straight to the decision-maker, setting out clearly what you want them to do to implement minority rights and why. Be able to show them the answer to the questions - why do this? And why now?

Direct lobbying is essential in virtually every campaign.

1. Where the decision-maker is broadly sympathetic/can be easily persuaded that the action is in their interest: what they will need is a clear justification to act, clear solutions to the problem, and sometimes assistance in doing so (such as training). Be sure that even if someone appears sympathetic, that they actually are, and are not just putting you off.
2. Where the decision-maker is broadly neutral/not interested: you have to show them that they need to act, and need to act now. Show them that they will gain if they act, and/or lose if they do not. Use indirect pressure. Sometimes it is enough to be such an annoyance that they find it better to act to make you go away.
3. The decision-maker is hostile: be sure of this before you start. (Sometimes for example, the views of people within the country may not be entirely correct.) If you are not sure, start by treating the decision-maker as if they were neutral and see what reaction you get. If they are hostile at first, you will probably have to show them that they will lose out if they do not act. Indirect pressure may be important, even to get them to take notice.

While direct lobbying is essential, all of the other methods are optional. Do not assume because something has worked before it will necessarily work again. You have limited time and resources, so plan well and use the best methods for the issue, time and place.

When lobbying your primary target, e.g. the Minister for Home Affairs, it may be wise to wait until your campaign has built up a head of steam so that you have some leverage and power.

You might want to carry out a problem/solution tree to find out who the people are that the Minister for Home Affairs, for example, listens to.

Indirect pressure/lobbying

This is lobbying a person/government/institution that will itself then lobby the decision-maker. You need to plan and research this carefully, in particular - why do you think your secondary target will take up the issue? Will they present it accurately? Why will the primary target listen to them?

When it can work:

• When the primary decision-maker is unfriendly/not interested.
• When the secondary target has a lot of influence (e.g. EU in accession states; international courts when the rule of law is respected; USA in many countries).
• When you can influence the secondary target. If they are hostile to begin with, you need a very good reason to spend your time persuading them (one reason could be that if you persuade them, they will definitely persuade the primary target).

When it is a waste of time:

• When the decision-maker is already sympathetic. It is a much better use of time to work with them direct.
• When the secondary target has limited influence on the decision-maker. This is another classic mistake. Given MRG's history of working with the UN and the UK, we should be wary of assuming that they will always have influence.
• When the decision-maker can portray it as 'interference'.

You must:

• Research carefully.
• Know what you want the secondary target to do.
• Know the motivations of the secondary target.
• Continually be aware of the effect on the primary target.
• Ensure you have some agreement for next steps by the end of the meeting, even if the Minister just agrees to meet you again or read your briefing.
• Follow up your meeting with a note on agreed outcomes.

Public opinion

This is using the force of public opinion to bring pressure on decision-makers. Sometimes it can be in the country itself. Sometimes it can be 'second hand', to influence a government that will influence the key decision-maker (i.e. trying to make public opinion pressurize European governments to take action with the Sudanese government).

'Public opinion' is a vague concept, and is deeply linked to the media (the media claim to represent public opinion and politicians often think it does).

When it can work:

• In a democracy when the decision-makers are accountable to the public, they will usually take note.
• When the issue is easy to show, and clear action is apparent.

When it does not work:

• When it is not coordinated.
• When the public are not sympathetic. Often, the majority public opinion is not sympathetic to minorities in its country (although it may be to minorities elsewhere).
• When too much attention is placed on public opinion in secondary targets (e.g. you could influence UK public opinion on Chechnya but it is unlikely to make any difference).
• When the issue quickly fades from public attention.

You must:

• Know why you want to influence public opinion, which public (i.e. in which country) and why, and what you want them to do.
• Be able to describe what the problem is and what should be done, clearly. Repeat this.
• Be able to respond quickly if the issue suddenly becomes the focus of public attention.
• Try and lengthen the campaign (i.e. have new angles so it does not quickly fade away), especially if the response of the decision-maker is 'we'll look into this'.

Media

Media is still essentially national, although the internet is beginning to change this (e.g. the BBC website is read worldwide). The media is often a way of ensuring that an issue is taken up by key decision-makers and should normally be considered a vital part of any campaign. However, the media often promotes hatred against minorities.

When it can work:

• When you have a clear message, showing a clear problem and clear solution.
• When you can show that the issue is urgent/topical/relevant to the media's audience.
• When the issue/part of the world is 'in the news'.
• When you know why you want to use this particular media - do the decision-makers you are targeting listen to it?

When it does not work:

• When the media is unfriendly and uses an issue to stir up further hatred of minorities.
• When you simply target the friendly media (e.g. something can be dismissed in the UK as 'being in The Guardian').
• When you target media of no influence on your decision-maker (e.g. UK media).
• When your message is too complicated.
• When you do not stress what the solution is and who has to do it (i.e. when the media message becomes 'isn't this bad', everyone agrees, and nothing is done).
• When your message is not new.

You must:

• Have a very clear message, with clear solutions and responsibilities. Be able to show both (photos can be important).
• Know which media you wish to target and why. Target the message to different media.
• Be able to respond very quickly if an issue becomes news.
• Have something new. Plan a series of news releases if you want to keep something in the news.
• Be prepared to get on the phone to remind journalists of your story.

Using electronic communications/website

Campaigning in the twenty-first century will be centred on the internet. The internet is becoming a primary source of factual information and in many cases opinion. The advantages of the internet are that you can put large amounts of information on for very little cost, change and update it, and reach a very large number of people. However, of course, there is an 'information gap' in parts of the world (although less than has been thought). Yet the problem for decision-makers is information overload, so your message must stand out.

When it can work:

• For factual information, when clearly presented, relatively short and updated.
• For opinion, when clear, persuasive and regularly updated (see http://www.juancole.com).
• When part of an overall strategy, including targeting decision-makers, ensuring your information is easy to find on the website.
• When you get people to read one document and then have others available.

When it does not work:

• When used in isolation. People may read it, but you have to persuade them to act.
• When it has not been part of the overall strategy.
• People do not read lengthy documents online (although they may print them out - but then rarely read them). Documents that are difficult to find are not read.
• When flooding people with information (e.g. lots of emails).

You must:

• Plan to use the web from the beginning. What information do you want on it and why? Is it to be factual or argumentative?

Publications

In the campaigning sense, publications are fundamental - it is getting the information to the right people. Having a publication gives you something concrete to set out your case and with which to lobby decision-makers. In order to persuade people, you usually need facts and arguments (particularly in showing the solution). However, often campaigns get taken over by publications, which are seen as ends in themselves. The desks of decision-makers (and waste paper baskets) are groaning with well-written publications that were simply sent out.

When it can work:

• As part of a campaign, particularly when combined with an effective media and lobbying strategy.
• When it shows both what the problem is and clearly what needs to be done.
• When the message is short, simple and memorable, even for those with little time.

When it does not work:

• When not thought through.
• When simply 'adding to information' or 'contributing to the debate'. These are academic, not campaigning, documents.
• When too complicated, trying to cover too many issues so all are lost.
• When not timely.
• When left in isolation, and decision-makers are not made to read it (through media, lobbying or other pressure).
• When there is nothing new to say.

You must:

• Know what you want to say (fact and argument) and why a publication is needed.
• Know who you want to read and act on the publication.
• Know how it is to be published, and in what format.
• Know if it makes a difference who the messenger is - and choose the right one(s).

Litigation

Being sued can make even the most unfriendly government change a position. It is generally more effective than vague condemnation. One of the most successful minority rights campaigns, the 1950 and 1960s civil rights movement in the USA, began with a legal victory. A clear legal decision that a situation is illegal leaves very little room for discussion.

When it can work:

• When part of a clear, long-term strategy (legal cases take a long time and are far from certain of success). The NAACP brought dozens of cases before winning the major case on desegregation.
• When combined with other methods, particularly the media and lobbying. Many legal cases make a good media story.
• When there is a clear plan for negotiating with the government/authorities concerned. Most legal cases end in a settlement, and it is therefore vital that the minorities concerned are able to prioritize their wishes.

When it does not work:

• As a short-term measure.
• When the government does not respect the rule of law, whether domestically or internationally.
• When legal bodies are not independent or trustworthy.
• When no thought is given to implementation, which is the crux of the issue. Legal cases do not end on judgement.

You must:

• Know what you want to achieve.
• Know that the rule of law works to some degree (and is respected by the government).
• Have clear involvement of the right legal experts.

Training officials

Government officials are usually the key decision-makers. Working directly with them, including training them on minority rights or being a consultant to them, can be one of the most effective ways to persuade them to take action. You can also learn much from a two-way discussion about their approach to the key minority rights issues you are campaigning on. On the other hand, you should also be aware that sending people on training is often an excuse to avoid taking any action, and that the training is not genuinely wanted.

When it can work:

• When part of a specific campaign with a clear goal (it will often come at the end of a campaign, when hopefully the need for action on a problem has been widely publicized and accepted).
• When the problem in implementing minority rights is because of officials' lack of understanding/knowledge/skills/tools or confidence (you need to know which combination of these prevails to design effective training).

When it does not work:

• When the officials are hostile to minority rights.
• When the officials see no need to implement minority rights.
• When the training does not from part of an overall campaign and is vague and general (e.g. you must support minority rights…).
• When the training is conceived as simply about information provision rather than persuasion.
• When the training is completely generic/complicated rather than geared towards the specific situation.

You must:

• Know what you want to achieve/what exactly is lacking.
• Know why you have been asked to do it.
• Persuade, not simply provide information.
• Offer practical, workable, relatively simple tools trainees can put into practice after training.
• Follow up.

Training minorities

'Training' minorities is often essential, but can be useless if not properly planned and thought through. In particular you should know what information people need, why and how they should use it. It is very different from training officials.

Minorities are clearly at the core of any campaign. Within campaigns, the following training can be useful:

• How to use any of the techniques above. Be aware that learning by doing is often the most effective.
• Training on how to analyse the situation and decide which method to use.

When it can work:

• When planned from the beginning of the campaign, and either used near the start, or at key times (e.g. just before the publication of a report) so that it can be immediately implemented.
• When minorities lack knowledge/understanding/skills/tools/ confidence or contacts.

When it does not work:

• When too generic.
• When minorities lack opportunities to put knowledge, skills, etc. into practice and these cannot be provided (e.g. lack of civil space).
• When gender issues are ignored.

You must:

• Find out exactly what is lacking and design the training accordingly.
• Ensure opportunities to put the training into practice are already available or can be created.
• Plan, with the people concerned - female and male - what you are doing, when and why.
• Follow up.

Evaluation, learning and adapting

A campaign should be under continuous evaluation. The critical issue is: are we (still) using the best methods to achieve our aim? Feedback from targets/review of your progress may lead you to reconsider whether the initial analysis was correct and whether the best mix of methods is being used. As situations change methods which seemed the best a year ago may no longer be. You need to react to what you and others learn, and how events develop.

At times you should evaluate whether your goal is still the best one.

Situations may change dramatically, e.g. with a change in government or with something becoming newsworthy for a period. You will need to act quickly to benefit (usually new governments are open to change, but quickly settle back to old practices).

When to end/when to continue:

Campaigns can either go on for too long or end too soon. Sometimes campaigns may take decades (the civil rights movement), other times a campaign may achieve part of its aims and continuing is not productive. Therefore each campaign should have a strict end point, and you will need to justify to yourself and others why it should be continued. The tendency is often to want to stick with the current topic and so you need to make the campaign ending your default setting. However, picking up and dropping issues regularly and too quickly is also a recipe for disaster. A balance needs to be struck. You may decide that the long-term campaign may continue but the short-term campaign will end.

Organization, coordinating and budgeting:

If you do the above, translating this into specific, fundable and deliverable projects should be easy. You will have:

1. A clear goal.
2. Clear logic, showing why your combination of methods/activities will lead to the desired result (change for the minority community/ies).
3. An ability to prioritize, so you can set the budget accordingly.

The key skill in creating a project from this may well be to understand cost and time effectiveness. If you are able to do so, you can determine what is the best way to achieve your aim for the least amount of time and money.

Example of a successful minority rights campaign

The civil rights movement in the USA 1950s and 1960s

Success:

It had clear, overall aims, to end segregation and ensure fair voting rights.

It succeeded, in that Acts of Congress in 1964 and 1965 led to the main aims being implemented across the south of the USA.

Reasons for success:

• It started with legal judgements (Brown v Board of Education of Topeka etc.) giving a clear focus (end segregation).
• However, the organisers also understood that they would have to campaign for the judgement to be implemented. (Previously campaigning had been entirely based on legal cases - NAACP - but in the 1950s it was realized much more was needed.)
• Very unified, organized groups (NAACP, SCLC, SNCC), based on key groups (lawyers, churches, students). The campaign had an overall charismatic leader (Martin Luther King) who got world attention (in particular the Nobel Peace Prize).
• Development of a very organized campaigning technique of non-violent action (based on lessons from India and elsewhere).
• Using politics - playing off Republicans and Democrats (until then the Democrats had been opposed to civil rights). Appealed to federal government over state. Used the aftermath of JFK's assassination to get laws passed.
• Using media - especially new technology, television. Successful portrayal of opponents as violent extremists (by ensuring television coverage of violence). Used for both national and international campaigning. Television picked up on campaigns that were easy to understand (riding greyhound buses, sit-ins).
• Appeal to majority, on moral, legal and practical grounds, and involved them in campaigning ('freedom rides'). Portrayal of campaigners as multi-cultural and peaceful.
• Reaction to events - the Montgomery bus boycott was not planned, but became a very organized, 12-month event, with a clear aim that was achieved (ending bus segregation in Montgomery).
• Overall aim stuck to. While specific short-term campaigns (ending desegregation in specific towns) were developed, some failed and were abandoned in the name of the overall campaign.

Subsequent failure after 1965:

• There was a lack of a clear aim - very complicated, difficult to understand.
• Lack of leaders and organization compared with previously.
• Failure to address majority population.
• Alienation of media (for various reasons).
  
  

MRG's campaign guide has been compiled by Clive Baldwin, Head of International Advocacy.