Comments on: More of my negligent and shallow musings on conflict minerals… http://chrisblattman.com/2010/07/27/more-of-my-negligent-and-shallow-musings-on-conflict-minerals/ International development, politics, economics, and policy Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:41:11 +0000 hourly 1 By: Nell Okiehttp://chrisblattman.com/2010/07/27/more-of-my-negligent-and-shallow-musings-on-conflict-minerals/comment-page-1/#comment-15880 Nell Okie Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:59:19 +0000 http://chrisblattman.com/?p=5235#comment-15880 Jason Stearns: I do have a feeling that some people love to hate Enough and Eve Ensler because of their flashy celebrity style of advocacy more than for its content. Let's keep our feet on the ground and our heads screwed on.http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/ Jason Stearns: I do have a feeling that some people love to hate Enough and Eve Ensler because of their flashy celebrity style of advocacy more than for its content. Let’s keep our feet on the ground and our heads screwed on.

http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/

]]> By: Scotthttp://chrisblattman.com/2010/07/27/more-of-my-negligent-and-shallow-musings-on-conflict-minerals/comment-page-1/#comment-15865 Scott Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:56:39 +0000 http://chrisblattman.com/?p=5235#comment-15865 The biggest complaint from Laura atTexas in Africa and you is that the campaign is oversimplified and the legislation is oversold. You really have to think about what it would mean to do advocacy with no simplification or selling. Go to a person in Congress. Tell them you have an idea for something. Tell them its an incomplete solution, may not even work. Tell them there are 15 other things that have to happen, 14 of which are out of your control, to bring peace. Then go tell their constituents this. You will never pass anything. Simplification and selling cannot be critiques of advocacy organizations. What you need to do is stipulate very clearly what was lost in the simplification and selling that could feasibly be included in an advocacy campaign, or articulate why such a campaign is more harmful than beneficial. What is not feasible is to include all the complexity of the world in an advocacy campaign. ENOUGH has clearly articulated other policy priorities in the DRC, AND ADVOCATED for them. And other very sophisticated advocacy/research NGOs back similar policies, including Global Witness. It is also worth asking whether you have looked what is in their FRONT pocket, which is actually a highly nuanced piece of legislation. There is a relevant distinction between policy and message. Your complaint is that simple message pushes simple policy. But read this legislation, and you will see simple message pushing complicated policy. The biggest complaint from Laura atTexas in Africa and you is that the campaign is oversimplified and the legislation is oversold. You really have to think about what it would mean to do advocacy with no simplification or selling. Go to a person in Congress. Tell them you have an idea for something. Tell them its an incomplete solution, may not even work. Tell them there are 15 other things that have to happen, 14 of which are out of your control, to bring peace. Then go tell their constituents this. You will never pass anything. Simplification and selling cannot be critiques of advocacy organizations. What you need to do is stipulate very clearly what was lost in the simplification and selling that could feasibly be included in an advocacy campaign, or articulate why such a campaign is more harmful than beneficial. What is not feasible is to include all the complexity of the world in an advocacy campaign.
ENOUGH has clearly articulated other policy priorities in the DRC, AND ADVOCATED for them. And other very sophisticated advocacy/research NGOs back similar policies, including Global Witness.
It is also worth asking whether you have looked what is in their FRONT pocket, which is actually a highly nuanced piece of legislation. There is a relevant distinction between policy and message. Your complaint is that simple message pushes simple policy. But read this legislation, and you will see simple message pushing complicated policy.

]]> By: Dave Algosohttp://chrisblattman.com/2010/07/27/more-of-my-negligent-and-shallow-musings-on-conflict-minerals/comment-page-1/#comment-15860 Dave Algoso Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:35:25 +0000 http://chrisblattman.com/?p=5235#comment-15860 I'm honored to be called out so forcefully in this post. I hope my reply wasn't one that you considered "angry." I don't have a dog in this fight, but I come to EP's defense because I understand what tough strategic decisions they have to make.You're right that the impacts of a simplistic message can be far reaching, but that's not limited to conflict issues. Just look at the hype around microfinance, or PlayPumps, or any number of other solutions du jour. I think it's a general human fault to be drawn to simple stories. EP might be guilty of an over-simplified message, and you're right to hold them (and anyone) to a higher standard -- I'm just not sure anyone's going to reach that standard in an advocacy campaign. I think they probably asked themselves the same questions about general impacts that you ask above (e.g. will a tiny victory on one aspect undermine progress on others?) and they had to make a judgment call. At this moment, I don't know if they made the right call or not, and I don't know how one would know.One aspect of your post here that resonated with me: the question of who advocacy organizations are accountable to. Like any organization, they're accountable to whoever funds them, and the people who fund them want to see policy wins, which leads to simple messages. If nuance is going to enter this discussion, it will be from academics (and yes, bloggers) working in partnership with the funders and the advocacy groups to craft a longer-term plan that will address all the other points in EP's detailed recommendations. I suspect many of those other points won't be policy changes (at least not in DC) but will instead take the form of social service or other programs in the communities directly affected by the violence. This is where the nuanced analysis becomes a nuanced strategy, and it begins to involve elements that are not EP's job. I think EP does the policy change, while the funders will need a lot of other actors involved (such as NGOs, CBOs, government bodies, etc.) for the other components.(But I'm also no expert on Congo, so I don't presume to know what those things are. I'm looking forward to Laura's other posts later in the week so I can learn a little more!) I’m honored to be called out so forcefully in this post. I hope my reply wasn’t one that you considered “angry.” I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I come to EP’s defense because I understand what tough strategic decisions they have to make.

You’re right that the impacts of a simplistic message can be far reaching, but that’s not limited to conflict issues. Just look at the hype around microfinance, or PlayPumps, or any number of other solutions du jour. I think it’s a general human fault to be drawn to simple stories. EP might be guilty of an over-simplified message, and you’re right to hold them (and anyone) to a higher standard — I’m just not sure anyone’s going to reach that standard in an advocacy campaign. I think they probably asked themselves the same questions about general impacts that you ask above (e.g. will a tiny victory on one aspect undermine progress on others?) and they had to make a judgment call. At this moment, I don’t know if they made the right call or not, and I don’t know how one would know.

One aspect of your post here that resonated with me: the question of who advocacy organizations are accountable to. Like any organization, they’re accountable to whoever funds them, and the people who fund them want to see policy wins, which leads to simple messages. If nuance is going to enter this discussion, it will be from academics (and yes, bloggers) working in partnership with the funders and the advocacy groups to craft a longer-term plan that will address all the other points in EP’s detailed recommendations. I suspect many of those other points won’t be policy changes (at least not in DC) but will instead take the form of social service or other programs in the communities directly affected by the violence. This is where the nuanced analysis becomes a nuanced strategy, and it begins to involve elements that are not EP’s job. I think EP does the policy change, while the funders will need a lot of other actors involved (such as NGOs, CBOs, government bodies, etc.) for the other components.

(But I’m also no expert on Congo, so I don’t presume to know what those things are. I’m looking forward to Laura’s other posts later in the week so I can learn a little more!)

]]>