What can LGBT activists teach development communicators?

Pose the question ‘what is the purpose of the UN?’ and you will hear a cacophony of replies – some unprintable. Ask a UN official and what they should tell you is that the UN’s primary purpose is to promote, protect and propagate the compendium of universal human rights.

The vast interconnecting system of fundamental freedoms is the bedrock upon which a progressive world can be built. It is the gold standard. When debating global health issues or economic development or instances of wasted aid, the bottom line argument is that rights are inalienable, indivisible and equal to each other – oh and, by the way, if that moral weight doesn’t crush your argument, then remember, they are agreed by most countries in the world and underpinned by binding legislation at both the international and national level. Can’t argue with that.

But what if publics are unmoved by human rights?                                   

 An excellent Lexington column in a recent Economist got me thinking about this. It talked about how the gay marriage debate in the US shifted from one of ‘equal rights’ to one of ‘fairness’. This is, of course, essentially the same thing – but the frame is subtly different – and that makes the difference to how the argument runs.

To quote the article: ‘[f]or years groups seeking equality for gays drew inspiration from the civil-rights era. They talked of same sex couples unable to enjoy the same tax breaks as married couples and other such legal disparities.’

In 2008, in California, gay marriage became legal through the Appeals Court and then was outlawed again three months later at the ballot box through Proposition 8. The argument of the pro-gay marriage camp was definitely one of equal rights – bottom line, gay couples are discriminated against by having to pay higher taxes than straight couples: ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’

Now it would be simplistic – and wrong – to say the argument was lost because of its frame. But it is noticeable that gay marriage campaigns now prefer to talk of people being allowed to legally demonstrate their commitment to each other – just like straight couples are: ‘Come on – it’s only fair!’

And success in several states has followed (again there are other factors at play here too).

Let’s apply this to development communications. I once wrote about corruption in India (a vast, multilayered, ingrained problem) as a failure by the government to allow Indians to enjoy their 2nd generation social and economic human rights, e.g the right to work, the right to clean water, the right to education, etc. I stated that India was in violation of legally binding treaties guaranteeing its population those universal rights: ‘Can’t argue with the letter of the law, right?’

But in the absence of a World Police Force or World Government – and with a Security Council riven by national interests – there is no-one to enforce the legislation of human rights. So governments can – and do – sign up to them for good PR (and perhaps with good intentions) and then ignore them. 

So if governments ride roughshod over rights, why should publics care any more about them?

Obviously I’m over-generalizing, but perhaps my India argument should have focused less on global legal obligations and more on an individual’s internal moral compass. 

Don’t get me wrong – promoting human rights is undeniably a good thing, a motivator for me and many others – and a rock-hard backstop for development communications.

But legal human rights impose an obligation on people to act, whereas we are all more motivated by incentive than obligation.

I will have done my duty by helping to uphold the human rights of a child in a low-income country.

But by helping that child enjoy the same opportunities that I have had, I am making the world a fairer place – and creating fairness may well be a greater incentive.

This goes back to something I said in my last blog – that development communications should reflect the truth that, fundamentally, we are all the same.

Promoting the frame of fairness embraces an emotional understanding of our sameness; articulating the legal certainties of human rights legislation has a cold logic that may be less effective in drawing out empathy.

As the Economist’s Lexington column puts it: ‘heads you lose; hearts you win.’

UPDATE ON FEB 27th:
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto of a gay bill that would have sanctioned discrimination against gay people on the grounds of religious belief provides an interesting addendum. Even though it was a blatant attempt at denying equal rights to gay people, what seems to have swung it for Gov. Brewer was not the logical human rights argument, but an equally logical economic argument. She seems to have decided the bill would have hurt state businesses too much. No warm fuzzy ideas of fairness there. In public at least, the idea of branding Arizona’s religious groups as bigoted discriminators was far too politically damaging for Gov Brewer. And the possibility of being mauled by the US Supreme Court (and quite rightly so) would have been a PR disaster. But interesting that, even though the equal rights argument probably was the clinching factor here, she at least would not concede it.

Advertisements

Celebrate diversity – just don’t mistake it for difference.

Recently I watched a tetchy interchange between the BBC’s heavyweight interviewer Jeremy Paxman and Bill Gates at Davos over taxation and international aid. You can watch it here:

Jeremy asked Bill ‘why is it the business of taxpayers in Britain, in the United States, in Europe or anywhere else in the world to spend money on poorer people in poorer countries?’
Bill: ‘well you have to decide do the lives, say in Africa, have any value or not?’

Of course the motto of the Gates foundation is ‘all lives have equal value’.
But I think we can take that idea further.

The UNDP is running a global project called the World We Want, aimed at informing whatever replaces the Millennium Development Goals. Part of it is a global survey called MyWorld. Here it is: http://www.myworld2015.org/
It is a crowdsourcing exercise to find what are the most important issues, themes, needs and desires of people around the world. So far 1.36m people have taken part (actually add 1 to the tally – I just did the survey!) across 194 countries.
Early results show that people all over the world want their families to be safe, healthy, educated – and they want to be able to work to provide for their families. In other words, peoples’ priorities are largely the same, across ages, genders and – most importantly – rich and poor countries.
So, to Bill Gates’ statement that all lives have equal value, we can now add the observation that people around the world have similar priorities.

We can take this yet further.
I recently met a group of social activists, at the cutting edge of technology-driven activism and with a proven record of galvanizing communities that have achieved real political change. They want to turn their attentions to the most pressing international political problem of our times: the crisis in and around Syria. Thank god people as talented as they are taking this on.
I suggested a way to generate support is to help people around the world feel more connected to Syrian people – by showing that Syrians are not a homogenous, faceless bloc of refugees, or victims; rather they are three-dimensional human beings just like the rest of us. They might be us, were it not for the geographical lottery of birth and the upheaval of revolution.
So, let’s work this idea into our hypothesis: all lives have equal value, people around the world have similar priorities and we are all, at the end of the day, human beings who just want to live in peace, dignity and comfort.
The point is this: it is not our differences that mark us humans out; no, it is our sameness.
(Actually, Coca-Cola realized this idea well in its 2014 Super Bowl ad where multicultural Americans sang ‘America the Beautiful’ in their different mother tongues).
Celebrate diversity of culture, sure. But don’t ever mistake that for a divergence of humanity. For those of us interested in communications and development, what we should be trying to do is not show difference – but demonstrate the sameness of all people.

Communicating Development: An Exercise in Accountability.

Hello and welcome to engagingdevelopment. Here I hope to explore issues of development and communication, i.e. how to communicate effectively in order to engage people in development issues – and also how communication aids development. I’d really welcome any feedback – ideally, substantive and constructive (but who am I to be so picky!)

The textbook example of communication for development – let’s call it C4D for short – is the Keralan fishermen. Know this story? It goes like this.

A researcher found out a cellphone mast was to be installed along the coast of Kerala, providing cellphone coverage for fishing villages for the first time. The researcher studied the poor fisherfolk before and after. He found that, with cellphones, the fishermen could exchange information about where the biggest shoals were, when storms were coming in, which ports were offering the best prices each day, etc. The result was that they caught more fish, were less at risk from dangerous sea conditions and wasted less fish sailing from port to port looking for the best prices. The supply of fish for consumers went up, so prices went down, but the fishermen made more money because they sold more fish. Their incomes rose and their lives improved – because they could exchange information effectively. Communication aided development. QED as they say. It’s a great discrete case study but, globally, things are more complicated.

The communications revolution allows us to venture into the farthest reaches of the globe. Smartphones and social media allow us to get involved in issues far away. The world has become a huge echo chamber. Ordinary people are now both consumers of news and producers of it. It’s a challenge and an opportunity for all organisations in the business of information – news media, governments, corporations, aid agencies seeking public support, etc – as it means traditional top-down, one-way information flows are no longer acceptable. People ask more questions and seek more answers. They can organise into online communities that are virtual, transnational and powerful. And they apply bottom-up pressure on those in control.

There is a crisis of legitimacy in the world thanks to the democratisation of information. Communicating development these days is not just about demonstrating suffering and showcasing solutions – it is also an exercise in accountability. True communication is a two-way process – it requires listening as well. It’s up to the traditional organs of control – governments, news organisations, corporations, aid agencies – to decide whether they rise to that challenge. That way lies true development.