|
Brigit
Reynolds, SM and Sean Healy, SMA
That the world is at a moment of great change is widely recognised. The scale of the change and the appropriate responses required are not so widely appreciated. We believe that this is one of the great moments of change in human history. Such a claim could easily be seen as arrogant. However, it is based on a reading of the present reality which sees four eras of history coming to an end or a resolution simultaneously. An Historical Perspective The first of these eras is a 200-year period of human history. This period was shaped by the French Revolution of 1789 and the American Revolution of 1776, but shaped even more importantly by the Industrial Revolution. It is an era that has seen the dominance of the industrial type of development. In this era society set itself a project of production, to produce enough to meet the needs of all people. We suggest that this era is coming to a resolution simply because society is now in a position to produce all that is needed in society. Our world’s problem now is that we have surpluses. There are many people in the world dying of starvation at this time. But this is not a production problem. The world now has the capacity to produce enough to ensure that there is nobody in material need. We are also coming to the end of a 500-year period of human history. This is the era which began with the Renaissance and the Reformation and was dominated by science, an era in which society believed that science could solve all human problems and answer every question the world had to ask. It was an era of great individualism and an era when the political and economic values of the post-Reformation age replaced religious values as the dominant ones in society. That too is coming to a resolution as we come to realise the limits of science, of individualism and of the dangers that are inherent for society in giving politics and economics the primary value base. We are also coming to the end of a 2,000-year period of human history and this is the period of history that flowed from the cultures of Athens, Jerusalem and Rome. It is an era maybe most clearly identified for us in the concept of European imperialism, an era in which Europe and the people of European origin have been dominant in our world. This too is coming to an end. The centre of the world is no longer in the Atlantic or in the North American/European axis. This is also a 2,000-year period of history which has seen the dominance of the white race. The white race is a minority on this planet and yet it has been dominant for two millennia. This too is coming to an end. Finally the fourth era that is coming to an end is a 5,000-year period of human history. We won’t argue about this particular figure – maybe it goes back further. But it is the era of male domination, the era of patriarchy, where society has been structured in such a way that it has been dominated by masculine values, masculine priorities and masculine structures. We suggest that this dominance is coming to an end in our time. Shaping the Future All of these eras are coming to an end simultaneously. Consequently we are at a moment of great social change. This is a unique historical moment in which to shape the future. The implications for society are enormous. The future of society for quite some time to come will be shaped in the years immediately ahead. It is important at this moment of great change that those involved in institutions such as government, religion, education, health care, etc. should understand the nature of this transition. They need to have a clear understanding of what is happening at present and of the kind of future they wish to build. Only then will they be in a position to know which forces they should support, which forces they need to resist and which forces they need to transform. The future is not predetermined. As Christians we have an obligation to think very seriously about the future. Everything we do is, in fact, built on some understanding of the present and some vision of the future. We may not be conscious of this fact, yet it is true. As Christians we should not shirk our responsibility to face up to the implications of what we do. After all, we are meant to be bringing the reign of God to fruition and that involves moving the world from where it is towards where God wants it to be. We live in a world which promotes constant econ-omic progress. Wealth, employment and production are growing steadily. The conventional economic wisdom argues that continuing on this path for the foreseeable future will produce a world in which everyone has a stake and where the good life can be accessed by all. It presumes that everyone, in a world population twice as large as it is today, can reasonably aspire to and achieve the high-consumption lifestyle enjoyed by the world’s affluent minority at present. This is seen as progress. This conventional economic vision of the future is unattainable. Environmental degradation, encroaching deserts, unemployment, starvation, widening gaps between rich and poor, exclusion from participation in either decision-making or development of society: these are the global realities confronting decision-makers today. Economic globalisation and environmental stress are accompanied by social inequality and endemic deprivation. Millions of people in the richer parts of the world recognise these problems and are seriously concerned about the plight of the billions of people on all continents whose lived experience is one of constant exclusion from the resources and the power that shapes this world. People feel powerless. The media present one vision of the future and assume it is the only desirable or viable future. Politicians, more concerned about the next election, or simply intent on staying in power, rarely discuss the fundamental causes of, or long-term solutions to, the issues and problems they confront every day. It is crucial that questions be asked concerning the core assumptions that underpin and support the present situation. What model of development is being followed? Is it likely to produce a good life for all the world’s citizens? What constitutes progress? What are the underpinning values on which decisions are made in shaping the future? Are we at ease with these values and the structures that flow from them? Is it possible to envision a future where everyone really would have a stake, be respected, have meaningful work and an adequate income, where all could genuinely participate? These are key questions. The world is at a major crossroads. It has the resources and capacity to choose a wide range of different options. Decisions made now will have major effects on the generations of the future. Consequently, it is essential that the questions raised here be examined by leaders, by policy-makers and by people generally. A Gospel Perspective We start from the belief that the world, as it is now, is not the kind of world envisaged in the Gospels. We do not accept the divisions we see. Like many we wish to work for a society where "the hungry are filled with good things" (Lk 1:53). Taking inspiration from the Beatitudes we work with Jesus for the coming of the Kingdom where the poor will be happy because they have sufficiency, where those who hunger and thirst for what is right will see their vision concretised in the structures of society, where the gentle (or "the lowly") will be guaranteed their right to a part of the earth’s resources ("They shall have the earth for their heritage" Mt 5:5). With St Paul we are conscious that the "entire creation is groaning in one great act of giving birth" (Rom 8:22). We want to play a positive role in this great act of giving birth to a future society. How can this Gospel message be made relevant in our mission today? In recent years the Church has developed a large body of social teaching. We find in this teaching the guidelines needed to point the way for us pilgrim people. From Pope Leo XIII, who began the call for major changes in the socio-economic order to the present day, the Church is calling us to transform society. We recall that Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for "bold transformations, innovations that go deep" (n. 32). The Synod of Bishops (1971) in its document Justice in the World said that "Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel" (n. 6). Pope John Paul II in Laborem Exercens calls for a complete analysis to reveal unjust structures so that they may be examined and transformed to build a just earth (n. 2). More recently in Centesimus Annus he talked about the virtues needed to be involved in this transformation. "To destroy such structures (of sin which impede the full realisation of those who are in any way oppressed by them) and replace them with more authentic forms of living in community is a task which demands courage and patience" (n. 38). Recent social teaching alerts us not only to the structures that oppress people but also to the structures that cause destruction to the environment. "Today the ecological crisis has assumed such proportions as to be the responsibility of everyone ... there is an order in the universe which must be respected ... the ecological crisis is a moral issue" (Pope John Paul II, January 1, 1990). Deepening Divisions When we look at our world today we see deep division and widespread exclusion. Worldwide more than four billion people do not have the resources required to live life with basic dignity. We acknowledge that the depth of poverty varies. At present more than one billion people on this planet live in absolute poverty i.e. with an income of less than $370 a year. This figure has risen from 500 million in the early 1980’s. Today one million children under five die every month in the countries of the ‘South’. The poverty of other better off countries is none the less real even though it is not as extreme. Yet the world as a unit is not poor. 83 per cent of the world’s total wealth is controlled by less than 20 per cent of the world’s population. This wealthy 20 per cent are in a position to use their wealth and power to strengthen their own position at the expense of the poor nations of the South. There are many other things we could say concerning the economic/political/cultural/social reality of our world today. But in the context of this group it is not necessary to develop this dimension. An Alternative Vision Is this the way our society should be organised? Is this the way God wishes our world to be organised? It seems to us that the obvious answer to both questions is in the negative. So two further questions present themselves: what kind of alternative future do we have to offer? And what are we doing to articulate and make this alternative concrete? These questions become especially important given the rapid changes in our world today. When the politically and economically powerful in our world address the future, they offer us today only one vision – that of a society with expanding production (using more technology), fewer people employed and with the remainder engaged in a life of leisure. They see power as being in the hands of an even smaller élite. The most important people in such a society are seen as those who facilitate the more efficient running of the production process from which all of life’s benefits are presumed to flow. The majority would have no say in the shaping of such a society and would not participate in its operation to any great extent. The very meaning of life would be readily altered, human rights would be eroded, human dignity would not be respected, human development would not be facilitated and the environment would be exploited. We believe this vision needs to be seriously challenged. What would an alternative vision entail? What would an alternative future look like? Christian values state clearly that we should not accept the present growing divisions in our society but should, instead, seek to eliminate them. We need to search for and strive to achieve balance in our values, goals and priorities. This will require a shift of emphasis. We need to move from quantitative to qualitative values and goals, from organisational to personal and interpersonal values and goals. We need to move from values that are economically based towards values that put far more emphasis on the real needs and aspirations of people. We need to move from mechanistic to organic values, from masculine towards feminine priorities. We need as a world to change direction, to find and maintain balance in all our relationships — with ourselves and God, with people we are close to and people in the wider world and in our relationship with the environment. A world moving along these balanced lines would be a just world based on the biblical understanding of justice as a harmony which comes from fidelity to right relationships with God, with our neighbour and with the environment. Advocacy: A Ministry of Influence Substantial social change is required if we are to move towards a just world. The Gospel and Catholic social teaching call all Christians to be involved in transformation. This transformation takes place at both the personal and societal levels. Each generation of religious has responded to this invitation which is "ever ancient ever new". What is the appropriate response today? Traditionally religious focused on their institutions e.g. schools, hospitals, etc. They tried to create a just society through the graduates from these institutions. Their work concentrated on preparing good leaders whom, they hoped, would in turn transform society. This strategy has produced its successes. However, as we have seen, there is a lot of poverty and social division, even in countries with a long Christian tradition. We find ourselves asking the question why? Part of the explanation, we believe, lies in the lack of awareness of the structural dimensions of society among Christian leaders. We need a strategy that has a greater appreciation of the structural dimensions of justice. As well as good people we need good structures that promote equity and right relationships. History is teaching us that a new strategy is needed. We believe that Christian leaders need to be involved where the structures of society are being developed. This is an arena where we become a voice, among many others, · developing an accurate social analysis; · articulating a vision of society; · providing models of good practice and doing all this in an integrated way which ensures that the lived experience of all, but especially of poor and excluded people, is included at all stages and in all arenas of the process. Where we formerly controlled and managed the process through religious institutions, now we can only hope to influence the process. Today the task is that of discovering how to have influence without having control. One way of influencing the development of society is through advocacy. We will look at the elements of advocacy and the skills needed later in this paper. But first we need to ask ourselves if we believe advocacy is a valid ministry for religious. Where we affirm that advocacy is a ministry in which Church personnel should be involved we should also commit ourselves to the consequences of this affirmation. What resources are we prepared to make available to this work? Religious have been and still are extraordinarily generous in the resourcing of their institutions. Not only have personnel been provided and trained to a very high standard, but religious leaders have tried to provide facilities and up-to-date equipment for these institutions. To date the work of advocacy is resourced in a very haphazard and very meagre way. This ministry tends to be done by very committed people who are already fully employed in another ministry. Those involved in the ministry of advocacy tend to find it difficult to get the financial resources needed for this work. Core Meaning If we are to work for social change we need to understand how social change can be generated. We can then go on to explore the role of advocacy in a strategy to generate social change. Every society has a dominant core meaning. By this we mean the principal values, attitudes and assumptions that permeate the society. For the most part people subscribe to these values, attitudes and assumptions without question or even without adverting to their existence. They provide the meaning that carries society along with a certain sense of purpose. When we use the word "meaning" we are speaking of culture. A society may have a number of cultures within it but at any particular point in history one of these will be dominant. There are many examples of how a dominant core meaning can maintain a very unjust social structure. A case in point would be South Africa as it was until recently with its unjust political, economic and social structures of apartheid. It would not have been possible to maintain this apartheid system if some ‘explanation’ or ‘justification’for its existence were not provided. The Afrikaaners could justify apartheid to themselves at least. This enabled the system to be continued. It should be noted that the people who benefit from this dominant core meaning are in a position to ensure that it is transmitted to others. A society must have meaning if it is to survive. It cannot survive in its present form if its dominant meaning is undermined or not transmitted. Whether we are addressing rural development or the environment, urbanisation or education or any other element of the world’s future we are involved with social change. Changing meaning is the key to social change. It is changing meaning which provides the energy to do the political organising required to change economic structures. These changed economic structures will lead to new social structures. Key elements of core meaning If the core meaning were changed then society would change. The old order would not be able to justify or explain its continued existence. It would be replaced by a new order based on the new meaning being transmitted. It is very important that this core meaning be articulated by each individual and by the society as a whole. Our own meaning is the meaning each of us transmits. This meaning is closely linked to two things – our analysis of the present social reality and our vision of what future society should be about. From these (whether articulated or not) flow decisions on what we do. In a society context both of these elements are central to policy. After all policy is aimed at moving from one towards the other. Figure 1 illustrates this process. Figure 1
To illustrate what is involved here we simply take an example from Europe today. At the moment the dominant meaning in Europe tells us that we must produce more and export more. This, we are told, will result in more jobs and eventually bring prosperity to all. This is a misreading of the present social reality. There is no failure of production. What is breaking down is the connection between jobs and production. We have seen the emergence of new technologies, robotics, microchips, computers, new technologies in food production, etc. These new technologies in effect mean that we can produce vast surpluses of any goods we wish to focus on. They provide new jobs but not on the scale of the number of jobs replaced. This dominant meaning in the EU today also misreads the future. There will never again be ‘jobs for all’ in the traditional understanding of that phrase. The dominant meaning of our society, however, still operates as if there will be jobs for all. Our schools prepare people for such a society. Our mass media convince people that this is the way the world must develop. Government statements would have us believe that we can again have a full employment situation. We believe that full employment in the traditional sense is not possible. This is especially true when we realise the world’s population is growing by ¼ million every day – and is likely to do so for the next 50 years! However, everyone has the right to work and to an adequate income. The challenge is to build a society, a world, where everyone has meaningful work and sufficient income to live life with basic dignity. The children who will graduate from secondary schools in 2015 A.D. are already alive. Yet the question of what sort of continent or world we want in 2015 A.D. is not addressed in a way which would involve the majority of people. The shapers and carriers of meaning in European society seem to be operating out of an inaccurate analysis of the present social reality and seem to have a very narrow and questionable vision of the future of European society. Such misreading is not confined to Europe. Carriers of meaning The major carriers of meaning in society are education, mass media and religion. These are like the cardio-vascular system of the human body. Mass media and education persuade people to accept the dominant culture. The explanation and justification of the political and economic structures are transmitted in various ways through the press, radio, television and the school system. A close examination will show that the press, radio and television throughout the world are, for the most part, owned and/or controlled by those at the top of the economic and political structures. Consequently it is not surprising that the values, the meaning they carry and transmit, are supportive of the status quo. The school system in most places follows a banking understanding of education, a process which sees the pupils as empty receptacles to be filled with ‘knowledge’ which is processed by the teacher. The values, the meaning, being transmitted socialise the pupils into accepting the existing society as it is. So we can say that the status quo is promoted by the mass media and by the school system. In the whole area of meaning in society, religion plays a very important part. Religion has often been used to legitimate the status quo even though the status quo might be very oppressive. How often has religion preached that the present situation must be accepted because it is God’s will and it will only last for a few years by which time we will pass on to our eternal reward? How often has religion told people that there is no need to do anything about their suffering in this world as it will soon pass and "there will be pie in the sky when they die"? Not only are people in such situations being told that the status quo has to be accepted but also that God has ordained it so! Changing Core Meaning People’s core meaning must change if they are to generate social change. We believe very strongly that as many people as possible should analyse and discuss the present reality and the future they wish to build. Then they will be participating in the first step in generating social change: changing their own core meaning. If people’s core meaning does not change then they will simply continue striving to maintain the status quo until it becomes unbearable. Once people’s core meaning changes they begin to make different decisions. These decisions impact on resources. The new core meaning will provide the energy to do the political organising that is necessary to change the way resources are distributed. When this occurs we will have new relationships developed between people, new social structures. Figure 2 illustrates this process. Figure 2
Changing meaning is the key to social change. Changing meaning (culture) leads to changing decisions (political) which leads to changing resource distribution (economic) which, in turn, leads to new relationships (social structures). Advocacy: The Process Advocacy is simply part of a strategy to generate social change. It is, however, an important part of such a strategy. If we believe that the local, the national and the world situation involves injustices and needs to be changed then advocacy can be a key element in this work. The starting point for any group’s or organisation’s advocacy work is some agreement on the analysis of the present situation and some agreement on a vision of the future towards which the group or organisation wishes to work. There is no use trying to communicate with the public if the group does not agree on its analysis and vision. Not all details need to be agreed but there should be substantial agreement on the issues being taken into the advocacy arena. In preparing a base-line analysis it is crucial that the research being quoted and the claims being made about the present situation are accurate. This is a key issue. Nobody should be able to effectively undermine the research. Otherwise credibility will be lost and change will not happen. In outlining a desirable vision of the future it is not necessary to have all the details in place. However, some clear sense of direction is required which is credible and will engage the imagination and commitment of others and lead them to act. Key Messages Before moving into the public arena it is very important to identify and agree on the key messages which the group wishes to transmit. It is important to recognise that not all the information or ideas the group has may be useable in this context. Choices must be made. In making these choices the group should ensure that its key messages are effective. An effective message will show people what is happening and why it is happening. In this way it promotes understanding which in turn helps to change attitudes. As far as possible the message should be short, simple, specific and focused. There are three situations in which the group or organisation will need messages: · Pro-active
messages: These are situations where the group or organisation itself
is setting the agenda and communicating as it wishes e.g. re the situation
of small farmers in poor countries. While all these situations are important the most important are the pro-active messages. These will be the ones over which the group has most control. They should always be clearly seen to serve the corporate mission of the group as well as its objectives. It is very important that the group or organisation ensure that its own agenda maintains priority. Endlessly responding to crises is not enough and can consume all one’s energy and time. It is gratifying to see the reaction of people when the group or organisation responds to crises. But it must be careful to ensure the crises do not take over. Responses to crises should as far as possible draw people’s attention back to the pro-active messages e.g. re the situation of small farmers in poorer countries. Target Audiences The key messages to be transmitted in any particular situation will depend on the audience being addressed. It is very important to identify the different audiences the group or organisation wishes to address. Possible audiences in Europe could include: · The
European Commission This is not a comprehensive listing but it gives some idea of the scale of possible audiences. It is important for the group or organisation to prioritise its audiences and act accordingly e.g. some of its efforts should be focused on churches but NOT ALL! Key messages must be tailored to particular audiences to enable the group reach its priority audiences and to help achieve its overall objectives. It is important to remember that situations change and, consequently, messages may also need to change. If the group is to be dynamic it must be rigorous in reassessing its messages on a regular basis to ensure they are relevant and effective as well as Gospel-based. How to Communicate Key Messages to Target Audiences There are a wide variety of means through which messages may be transmitted and some are far more appropriate than others for particular audiences. Face to face meetings, letters, summary documents, longer research papers, international media, national media, local media (electronic or written media at all three levels), newsletters, submissions aimed at specific audience(s), public meetings, assemblies, chapters, action-alert documents, databases, directories; these are some of the means which may be used. The group/organisation should identify the most appropriate means for communicating with each target audience. It is important to realise that: · Each
of the target audiences has a full agenda; All communications should have: · Dynamism; Otherwise they may not even be considered. Once the key messages, target audiences and means of communication have been identified, a list of tasks should be drawn up and detailed plans for implementation should be outlined. Then it is simply a matter of implementing the plan. Evaluation on an ongoing basis is essential in any advocacy. This evaluation should be built into the plan from the very beginning. Much learning can flow from ongoing evaluation once it is taken seriously and once its conclusions are built into the ongoing advocacy. Crises will emerge. Not everything will go according to plan. At times the plan may go ‘off the rails’ or be side-tracked by other events. Such crises should always be seen as opportunities. They can be used as new opportunities to restate the organisation’s position or to add an extra dimension to what has already been presented. CORI: An Irish Case Study The CORI Justice Commission was established in 1981. It established an office in 1982. Since its establishment the CORI Justice Commission has had the biblical understanding of justice at the centre of its deliberations and has tried to be strategic in putting it on the wider agenda. In its work it focuses on four key areas: .
Public policy In developing its work in the public policy arena the Commission has focused principally on three key areas. These are: · The
future of work – of special concern gi- en the persistence of unemployment
and the right of every person to meaningful work.
· Income distribution systems – of special concern because of the continuing failure of the welfare state to tackle poverty effectively. · Participation mechanisms – of special concern because of the democratic deficit being experienced in a democratic country where the voice of the powerful tends to be listened to much more readily than the voice of people who are poor, unemployed, or experiencing exclusion for a variety of other reasons.
The CORI Justice Commission has developed a comprehensive and integrated advocacy programme around these three core issues, while also working on a wide range of other public policy issues. We now outline some elements of this programme in a summary form to give you some idea of the work being done by the CORI Justice Commission. · Education, consciousness raising and conscientization. In the beginning it was necessaryto do a comprehensive education, consciousness raising and conscientization programme to ensure that people became more familiar with the issues of poverty, unemployment and exclusion. Many workshops, seminars and social analysis training programmes were organised and given by the Commission staff. In the beginning these were conducted principally with religious and people with whom religious worked. In later years these were made available to a wide range of other people, organisations and groups, many of whom did not have a Christian orientation to their work. These varied from grassroots groups to national policy makers. More than 600 of these have been held over the course of the past 16 years involving more than 25,000 participants. · Socio-economic review. For more than a decade the Commission has produced an annual socio-economic review. From modest beginnings this has evolved into a comprehensive book of more than 100 pages. It analyses and critiques the present socio-economic reality of Ireland from the perspective of the biblical understanding of justice. It proposes specific national objectives in 12 sectors and outlines detailed policies that could be implemented by government if it wishes to reach these national objectives. All of this is done within a fiscal stance that shows how these policies could be financed without damaging the economy. · National budget. Each year the CORI Justice Commission makes a pre-budget submission to government along the lines developed in the socio-economic review. Meetings are held with government ministers and officials as well as opposition leaders and other organisations to discuss the analysis and the policy proposals. On the day after the government announces its budget the Commission produces a 25-page detailed analysis and critique of the budget. This document identifies the beneficiaries of government budget decisions and shows how different decisions could have led to a fairer distribution of the available resources. · Social policy conference. The Commission has hosted an annual social policy conference since 1988. Each year this conference analyses one topic. An analysis of the topic is provided together with a critique from a justice perspective. Policy alternatives at both the macro and micro levels are outlined and critiqued. This conference has always been opened by the President of Ireland or by a government minister. It is attended by about 200 people including representatives of political parties, government departments, trade unions, employers, farming and community and voluntary organisations, religious leaders and academics as well as a wide range of activists involved with the topic being discussed. · Pilot projects. The Commission has also been involved in piloting an innovative programme that created 1,000 part-time jobs for long-term unemployed people in the social economy. When this approach to tackling unemployment was proposed by the Commission, the government asked us to pilot the idea. This we did in six pilot areas with the help of 162 organisations who were prepared to create these positions for unemployed people. After three years of piloting and another year of transition this approach has now been accepted and mainstreamed by government. Once the pilot phase was completed we handed the programme over to government and now play an advisory role in its ongoing development. · Networking. The Commission has a number of networks which it anchors and/or resources. One of these consists of religious with responsibility for justice issues within their congregations. Another is for activists and groups involved in this work at a local level in different parts of the country. This network has regional and national meetings. A third network consists of national organisations addressing issues of poverty and social exclusion. · Submissions to government and other bodies. The Commission produces a constant stream of submissions and briefings for government departments, parliamentary committees, national bodies of trade unions, employers, etc. These submissions cover a wide range of issues ranging from foreign policy to local development. They are often accompanied by oral presentations to these bodies, committees, etc. · Publications. The Commission produces other publications as well as those already outlined. These include a regular newsletter, briefings at election times, studies on topics such as basic income, etc. · Representation on public bodies. Because of its involvement in public policy issues, Justice Commission staff are now members of a range of public policy bodies. Some of these are national ‘think-tank’ type bodies. Others deal with specific policy issues ranging from unemployment to taxation policy, from housing to rural development. · Media. All the activities already listed are accompanied by a range of communications activities. One such area of activity involves briefing editors, journalists, researchers, presenters and producers and helping them find suitable material for programmes and articles that challenge the status quo. Another area is the creation of media events around issues to ensure coverage. We also respond to a steady stream of requests for interviews, comments and debate on issues in the public policy arena. In all cases great care is taken to proceed along the lines already outlined in this paper. · European/Global focus. For more than a decade the commission has ensured that a European focus is included in its activities. This is especially important where the key strategic issues of work, income and participation are concerned. Many decisions made at EU level have major implications for Ireland in these areas. Consequently, the EU institutions have also been the focus of advocacy activity. The global dimension is also a constant factor in the commission’s work. This is of special importance when proposing policies as these should be viable in a global context and not simply at the national or continental level. Impact In terms of the strategic issues already outlined, has all of this activity had any impact? We believe it has been very successful in highlighting these issues in the public arena as well as in the policy-making arena. On the issue of income: poverty has a much higher priority on the public agenda now than it had in the past. The public awareness of the relative failure of policies to tackle poverty has pushed government to seek solutions within the present policy framework and through alternative approaches. CORI Justice Commission has proposed the introduction of a basic income system as a successor to the present social welfare and taxation systems. Government has now commissioned three major studies to analyse the impact of introducing a basic income system in Ireland. A green paper on basic income will be published by government in mid-1999. This will be designed to produce a wide-ranging public debate on these issues. Government has also produced a national anti-poverty strategy and involved a wide range of groups in developing this. While its targets are not as high as we would wish, it does mark substantial progress from the present situation. On the issue of work: the need for alternative policies to tackle unemployment has been recognised and acted upon by government. The piloting and eventual adoption of our proposals for a more humane approach towards unemployed people involved in government-funded programmes has had a very positive impact. Side by side with these developments we have also sought to highlight the need for recognition of unpaid work and the contribution it makes to national development. From a very difficult beginning slow progress is now being made on this aspect of the work issue. On the issue of participation: in Ireland a national social partnership system has operated since 1987. This brought together three pillars of ‘social partners’, i.e. trade unions, employers and farmers, who sat down with government and negotiated a three-year national programme covering pay, taxation, social services, etc. From its inception CORI Justice Commission argued for the inclusion of a fourth pillar representing groups such as the unemployed, poor people and women who were not represented in their own right at these negotiations. After nine years of advocacy work, the establishment of a fourth pillar was agreed by government in 1996. CORI Justice Commission is one of the groups now recognised as a social partner by government. Others include the National Organisation of the Unemployed, the National Women’s Council and the National Youth Council. As a direct result of the inclusion of this pillar, the latest agreement (entitled Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness) places social inclusion at its core. It includes a separate chapter on this topic with a wide range of commitments to be implemented by government before the end of 1999. This is simply one example of improved participation for those who were previously excluded. We can point to a range of other developments at both local and national levels. While a great deal remains to be done on this issue as on the others, substantial progress has been made. Conclusion Points
to remember in the work of advocacy:
|
|||||||||||||||||||