|
|
 |
|
|
Do you understand your opponent well enough?
In the 1990s a senior British mandarin (civil servant) in the then Department of the Environment, used to tell incoming officials that
there were 'three types' of environmental organisation. 'Those you need to take notice of because they know what they are
talking about; those you must take notice of because they can do real damage, and those whom you just have to be nice to'. I think he
probably said the same thing to incoming Ministers.
Broadly speaking - and without revealing which groups were in which categories - the way officialdom (and some companies) will try to deal with
non governmental organisations, is to marginalise those who can cause real 'damage' to their interests , use those who have uniquely useful
information or expertise, and simply patronize the rest. The latter two are both forms of co-option, which for most groups is the main danger.
Ask yourself these questions. Is your campaign regarded as 'constructive' and 'responsible' by your opponents? Do those with
power to make the decisions you want to change, give you grants or other help ? Do you rely on them for information ? Has your campaign resulted
in greater access to officials or politicians or executives but still no real result ? Have you been invited to join a task force or working group
or commission (etc) in which time no decision will actually be taken ? If the answer to any of these is 'yes', then you may well be on
the way to co-option.
A campaign should get its resources - its capital of funds and information and support - from the public, not from other institutions.
It needs to remain free to act and with the legitimacy that comes from expressing a public sentiment rather than an institutional interest.
Learn the ways of your opponent. Learn their language - get to know ex -politicians or ex- officials or people from inside a company who
understand the culture and way of thinking. In this way you can learn to interpret the signals when your campaign begins to have some effect.
For British politics the best and certainly most enjoyable source of wisdom is found in the "Yes Minister" books based on the 1980s BBC TV series. Here are the '5 Excuses' of Sir Humphrey (the archetypal civil servant) for example.
1. The Anthony Blunt - perfectly satisfactory explanation but security considerations prevent disclosure
2. The Comprehensives - resources stretched beyond limits
3. The Concorde - worthwhile experiment now abandoned but much valuable data and jobs generated
4. The Munich Agreement - it occurred before important facts were known, and cannot happen again (Hitler wanted to invade Europe but unknown
to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
5. The Charge of the Light Brigade - Unfortunate lapse by an individual who has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures.
On the subject of smoking, the fictitious Minister Jim Hacker of Yes Minister finds himself obstructed by the civil service
(who want to retain tax income from cigarettes). One civil servant briefs another about the 11 stages that any idea for doing something
new has to go through before the Cabinet decides to do it (Yes Prime Minister, Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay eds, Guild Publishing London 1986):
- Informal discussions
- Formal proposals
- Preliminary study
- Discussion document
- In-depth study
- Revised proposal
- Policy
- Strategy
- Implementation plan circulated
- Revised implementation plan
- Cabinet authorisation
Such a process can of course, last longer than the lifetime of a government. These and many other types of delaying mechanism were used by the
British civil service to stymie attempts to discourage smoking in the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed under 1990s Conservative administrations it
not was even permitted to say that nicotine was addictive.
All too often, the government is acting not in the public interest but to
keep the public from affecting some entrenched commercial interest or to
defend the power of officials or politicians.
Here's the diary for March 22 (The compassionate society - Yes Minister, The Diaries of A Cabinet Minister, Jonathon Lyn and Anthony Jay eds,
Guild Publishing London 1984):
Minister Jim Hacker - 'Humphrey' I began, fully armed with chapter and verse, 'the National Health Service is an advanced case of
galloping case of bureaucracy'.
Humphrey [senior civil servant] seemed unconcerned. 'Certainly not' he replied. 'Not galloping. A gentle canter at the most'.
I told him that I knew instances of idiotic bureaucracy flood in daily.
'From whom ?'
'MPs' I said. 'And constituents, and doctors and nurses. The public.'
Humphrey wasn't interested. 'Troublemakers' he said.
I was astonished 'the public ?'
'They are some of the worst' he remarked.
|
|
|
|
Are you being co-opted?