Submit a thread to our digital quilt for the chance to be featured in an exhibition and win £200. Learn more
Menu

Theme: Human rights

Freeing up expression: colonial defamation laws

Posted on by Commonwealth Foundation

In 2014 the Foundation funded a three-year PEN International project in collaboration with PEN national centres in five Commonwealth African countries.

The project supported the PEN network to advocate for the reform of legislation governing freedom of expression and information.

At the start of the project, members from each of the five African PEN Centres (Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia) were taught how to train others to advocate. The capacity of PEN centres was also strengthened to engage with international organisations and processes to help further the cause, including the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and Sustainable Development Goal processes.

Leo Kiss, the Foundation’s Communications Officer, interviewed Daniel Sikazwe of PEN Zambia, the centre’s Secretary, to understand if the project’s objectives are still being advanced in 2019.

Who makes up PEN Zambia?

Daniel: We are made up of a whole spectrum of writers, including journalists and quite a large population of school-age young people. We work with young women and men to develop their writing, language, and citizenship, because writing—in our view—must promote citizenship.

What was the project supported by the Commonwealth Foundation attempting to do?

Daniel: One of the things this project sought to do was challenge and repeal colonial defamation laws that stifle free speech. Historically, defamation laws were a protective mechanism for British officials to stifle dissent amongst African freedom fighters and advocates, but these laws are still being used.

‘The project aimed to get journalists to appreciate how these laws impact them […] so they are aware and more likely to publish stories on the issues’

People must be able to question the democratic system. The law of defamation shouldn’t be criminal; it should be civil. We are also involved in a coalition campaigning for Freedom of Information legislation.

What methodologies did the project employ?  Did you use print media and radio to help further your advocacy?

Daniel: We are journalists, and so we used our connections in the media to build a coalition between media organisations who were aware of the need for Freedom of Information legislation. This included the Livingstone Press Club, which is a group of 15 media organisations. As a result, we had a lot of press and TV coverage on the need to reform the defamation laws.

We also established a radio programme, the Writer’s Circle. We use that platform to discuss literature, culture, rights: whatever topic is to do with writers and their freedom, and sometimes just to feature writers and discuss their work.

The project aimed to get journalists to appreciate how these laws impact them. Our study looked at how journalists are exercising self-censorship. If we have a topic that we want to be understood more widely among journalists, we do a briefing on the Writers Circle so they are aware and more likely to publish stories on the issues.

The secretariat of PEN Zambia left to right: Marita Banda (Project Coordinator), Daniel Sikazwe (Secretary), and Nicholas Kawinga (President)

How did global and regional advocacy add value to efforts at the national level?

Daniel: As a result of the project, PEN International passed a resolution to address the decriminalisation of defamation. PEN Zambia also engaged with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Information and Access to Information at the African Union and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Geneva, so that they would raise the issue with the Zambian government.

How effective was the direct engagement with Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Geneva?

Daniel: PEN Zambia and PEN International presented a shadow report to the Human Rights Commission a month before the Government of Zambia was due to appear before it. The report talked about the fact that more needs to be done to repeal the laws that criminalise freedom of expression. As a result, the government was asked to consider appropriate legal reform measures over a period of four years.

‘When musicians sing, politicians may ignore the word at first, but they can’t ignore the sounds. One way or another: they will hear.’

Additionally, we are using case studies from other African countries to demonstrate to government what laws and progress is being made with regard to freedom of expression elsewhere in the region.

How can creative expression influence dialogue and decision-making about policy issues?

Daniel: Performance art is key to this. When musicians sing, politicians may ignore the word at first, but they can’t ignore the sounds. One way or another: they will hear.

Eventually it might affect changes in policy but immediately it means that other voices are being heard. Someone speaking out creatively—through poetry, song, or theatre—is an opportunity for conversation.

When you put something on paper, very few people will read. But where there is a play or concert, people will come. Also, politicians feel less threatened by performative arts compared to hard copies of the written word.

How has this project changed your relationship with government?

Daniel: The project has helped to open up avenues for dialogue with government. We have an open invitation to meet with the Minister of Justice and to help the government implement the African Peer Review Mechanism’s recommendations when the process begins in the next couple of years. We have also recently received invitations to meet with the European Union office in Zambia to discuss freedom of expression advocacy.

What is the situation now with the repeal of criminal defamation laws and freedom of expression?

Daniel: The most visible aspect is that there are more media and freedom of expression groups now raising the issues we have been advocating for. Another step forward is that the Government of Zambia announced in March 2019 that they will table an access to information bill in parliament. There are conversations about constitutional amendments and we see this as an opportunity to press the parliamentary committee which is receiving submissions on the constitution. We will be ready to present our thoughts on freedom of expression and defamation laws in Zambia.

Daniel Sikazwe is the Secretary of PEN Zambia.

Building a healthy relationship

Posted on by Vijay Krishnarayan

I suppose it’s inevitable that as the end of my term as Director-General nears, I reflect on the Commonwealth Foundation’s journey over the past seven years. I’ll always be grateful to our governments for backing a strategic change in direction in 2012. That focussed our work on people’s participation in governance but coming to that agreement wasn’t straight forward. Some took more convincing than others. A refrain I heard often at the time went ‘the Commonwealth Foundation’s proposed emphasis on governance is well and good but we want to see a focus on development.’

‘Intellectual property regimes are also being used to prevent the search for new drugs that protect public health as globally we face up to anti-microbial resistance.’

My response was and remains a rebuttal of a reductionist world view that posits development and governance as dichotomous. All those who share the Foundation’s outlook raised a cheer when SDG 16 made the explicit connection between inclusive governance and better development outcomes. It was a privilege to see how this works in practice while visiting a Commonwealth Foundation grant funded project in Malaysia this month.

Third World Network (TWN) is a well-respected independent, international, research and advocacy organisation, which since 1984 has been taking up issues of concern to the Global South. They recognise that trade agreements between countries include intellectual property clauses that run counter to the internationally ratified Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement and a subsequent Declaration on TRIPs and public health. This affirms the right of countries to use the full flexibility of TRIPs to provide access to medicines to all. Intellectual property (IP) regimes are also being used to prevent the search for new drugs that protect public health as globally we face up to anti-microbial resistance.

TWN saw the need for engagement with governments in the global south on the provision of effective and affordable drugs. With funding from the Commonwealth Foundation they are helping the Ministry of Health (MoH) to navigate IP provisions to improve access to medicines and are providing a civil society perspective on the implementation and monitoring of a national action plan on anti-microbial resistance.

As we met with MoH colleagues, their genuine appreciation for the support they had received from TWN in the design, promotion and monitoring of the AMR national action plan was palpable. In 2012 the Ministry widened the focus of the AMR campaign from health professionals to the public at large and this called for considered and sustained civil society engagement. TWN acts as a champion, a trusted interlocutor and convenor. They raise awareness through events and publications and encourage civil society to participate and monitor progress. This is helping to take the AMR campaign to new audiences such as farmers who use antibiotics in their animal husbandry practices.

‘Getting the message across that [anti-microbial resistence] is an imminent threat that requires urgent action by all of us calls for new alliances and ways of working.’

We also met with colleagues from the remarkable Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDI). DNDI was established in recognition of the fact that the research and development of drugs doesn’t serve the interests of many on the global south. According to their research, of the 850 new drugs approved between 2000 and 2011 only 4% were for neglected diseases such as chagas, sleeping sickness and leishmaniasis (which with other neglected diseases accounted for 11% of the global disease burden over the same period). They develop new drugs to address these issues and patent them so they can be made available at an affordable price. In Malaysia they have targeted hepatitis c and have partnered with TWN as they have engaged with the Malaysian government so that one major drug is licensed and made available. In this instance TWN provided technical inputs on the TRIPS implications and opportunities to government policy makers.

I left Malaysia appreciating that the simple question ‘How can the most vulnerable people in society enjoy equitable access to health treatment?’ has a very complex answer. As Dr Ying-Ru Lo, the Head of Mission and WHO Representative to Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore said to us health issues are increasingly multi-sectoral and civil society is well suited to helping government agencies (often working in isolation) to make the connections and form the coalitions that are required to deliver public health.

This is inclusive governance in action and the Malaysian experience shows that it is not a luxury item. Getting the message across that AMR is an imminent threat that requires urgent action by all of us calls for new alliances and ways of working. The joined up approach of public health policy makers, DNDI and TWN on drugs for hepatitis c has contributed to the treatment of more than 1,000 people to date. Inclusive governance isn’t just about improving the decisions that shape people’s lives. It’s also about improving the decisions that save people’s lives. Seven years on from making the decision to change its strategic focus, the Commonwealth Foundation can make the connection between participatory governance and better development outcomes – but all that does is remind us of the amount of work that remains to be done.

Vijay Krishnarayan is Director-General of the Commonwealth Foundation.

Commonwealth Voices: institutional racism

This discussion examines the role of institutions in perpetuating structural discrimination in the fabric of governance, and examines ways of challenging and changing it. Historian and writer Onyeka Nubia chairs the discussion at the Commonwealth People’s Forum in London. Panellists include: Kalpana Kannabiran, a sociologist and legal researcher; Marai Larasi, a black women’s rights activist; and Tshepo Madlingozi, a senior lecturer in Law at the University of Pretoria.

Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or your chosen podcatcher.

Institutional racism
40 minutes
Listen to podcast now

Pushing back: Commission on the Status of Women

Posted on by Shamima Muslim

I was a newbie at the sixty-third United Nations Women’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW 63) and the Annual Consultation of Commonwealth National Women’s Machineries this month. It was a great feeling to meet a few of the pioneers who attended the same conference in Beijing in 1995 – still going strong and honouring us with their hallowed presence. But I was left wondering: Where is the vibrant African women’s feminist movement that took charge after Beijing 1995? The movement appears to have subsided with time.

Over the past two decades, the women’s empowerment movement ensured that more girls and women secure their agency and claim their rights to voice, as well as access to education, health, shelter, and political representation. It catalysed progress and gains but has fallen short of a complete transformation. It was all because of the work of a few activists who braved the odds and spoke out boldly and firmly in deed and in fact against all forms of discrimination against women and girls.

‘The women’s empowerment movement ensured that more girls and women secure their agency and claim their rights to voice’

My attendance at CSW63 was funded as part of an ongoing initiative of the Commonwealth Foundation which aims to revive, reconnect, and build a cross generational women’s movement, celebrating past gains and inspiring a bold future. It is my hope that this initiative will nurture a new generation of highly motivated and skilled young African feminist activists to continue the struggle.

Hazel Brown (left), feminist activist and pioneer delegate to the 1995 Commission on the Status of Women in Beijing, joined the activities in New York this month

About the CSW 63
Representatives from 45 UN member states, UN entities and the ECOSOC-accredited non-governmental organisations from all regions of the world attended CSW 63. The key themes of the event were: social protection systems, access to public services and sustainable infrastructure for gender equality, and the empowerment of women and girls. The programme was in line with global need: these thematic areas remain the major barriers to the full and effective participation of women in their societies.

‘We may have won some battles but the war towards a free and gender equal world is far from over.’

Push back against the push back
The new buzz-phrase for me is to ‘push back against the push back’. After so much work on women empowerment and equality, there seems to be a global push back against women’s rights issues and in some cases an erosion of the gains – in political participation for example. Women’s rights organisations and their allies must rise up and redouble their efforts to rebuild the movement. The UN Chief, Antonio Guterres, acknowledged this when he said ‘power is not given, power is taken’ (Mr. Guterres said this at a town hall meeting that Executive-Director of UN Women, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, had chaired and opened with song).

Registering my presence at CSW 63
At that same lively town hall meeting, I tried to catch the attention of Ms. Mlambo-Ngcuka, but to no avail. And so in the spirit of Mr. Guterres’ words, I approached him as he left the hall. In the few seconds I had, I urged the UN Chief to look into the challenges the movement faces. My argument – as it has been throughout – was that without a deepening collaboration between the media and the women’s movement, they will at best remain mere purveyors of news, rather than proactive shapers of new narratives and realities.

This is why I was pleased to moderate the session on how Ghana was incorporating gender into its social protection programmes: I got a chance to shape some of the narrative and I feel confident that next year, God willing, I will be able to do more…

My key takeaways from CSW 63

  • Learning about our shared humanity as women of different regions, religions, ethnicities and classes is crucial. Giving agency to these different voices is key to local advocacy and implementation of action plans
  • It was sad to learn that women’s political participation has regressed; we must push back
  • There is an urgent need to ensure women’s access to social protection systems, public services and sustainable infrastructure to level the playing field
    Africa and Ghana have even greater challenges in meeting these ideals, and must work to revive and rebuild a cross generational movement of young and old feminist activists to maintain pressure on power.
  • I was inspired by the conversation about youth and rural women’s participation as well as conversations to include men and boys on the agenda
  • My suggested key action points for African and Ghanaian participants are: mobilise to organize press interactions back home on the outcomes of the CSW63 meetings;  issue statements to government agencies highlighting the gaps in existing programmes on women empowerment and equality; organize intergenerational dialogues aimed at revamping the women’s movement and including newer, younger, or excluded voices; continue public awareness campaigns to increase knowledge and shape better attitudes towards women and girl’s rights.

My concluding advice, to all planning to attend CSW 64: by all means attend, but if you can: prepare, prepare, prepare. Above all be truly present when you are in the sessions and make many friends and contacts.

Shamima Muslim is Founder and Convener of a Alliance of Women in Media, Africa. 

When the tough get going: civil society resilience

Posted on by Sarah Peck

The term ‘resilience’ is often thrown around in the context of climate change, but my research on civil society in Barbados and Grenada showed that resilience is in fact essential to achieving social justice goals.

Between September 2014 and January 2018 I worked with the University of Sheffield and the Commonwealth Foundation on my Doctoral research. The purpose of the project was to understand more about how civil society groups operate in the Caribbean: their hopes, challenges, and everyday experiences; my purpose was to foreground the opinions and voices of civil society activists.

A summary of the project findings is available here.

Recent academic and practice-based engagement with civil society has focused on understanding civil society through the lens of sustainability, and less tangibly the wider civil society space they occupy. This is partly in response to changes in donor funding and the global economy, increased emphasis on terrorism and security, and also in response to the closing down of civil society space around the world. The sustainability literature does, however, highlight two key areas of concern for civil society: firstly, the ability of civil society to operate in an increasingly restrictive environment and, secondly, the ability of CSOs to continue their work with reduced levels of international funding.

‘Many are starting to utilise technological advances such as PayPal and crowdfunding to maximise their financial connections to diaspora groups.’

Whilst greater understanding of what sustains civil society is important, I want to use the remainder of this piece to think about the related, but subtlety different, concept of resilience. Resilience can be defined as the ability to recover from difficulties or challenging events. Critiques of this definition include the notion that ‘bouncing back’ does not challenge the status quo: they dispute the idea that vulnerabilities are entirely self-created and that responsibility lies with the individual and their coping mechanisms (see Commonwealth Insights paper ‘What makes societies resilient’). Despite these convincing critiques I want to put forward an argument for considering civil society’s’ resilience as well as its sustainability. For me the concept of sustainability implies stasis and predictability; the assumption that if certain procedures are continuously followed civil society will be sustained. This sidelines the importance of national and regional contexts and indeed innovation in the sector – factors that are far less predictable. The idea of resilience is perhaps more useful for reflecting the inherently variable, dynamic, and fluid nature of civil society. These inevitable fluctuations make being part of civil society exciting and challenging, and the need to be flexible, adaptable and resurgent in the face of change is critical. Resilience in this context can be thought of as ways of rearranging the status quo and taking control of the complexities that are part of civil society work.

This can be illustrated in a number of ways as civil society resilience takes many forms. During my research civil society activists described occasions when they have had to bounce back in the face of criticism from outside and inside the sector. This increases fatigue and places an emotional toll on activists, but in response civil society groups are finding alternative ways of engaging, for example through different media, and are using their social networks for support.

‘Groups also […] commit to a culture of reciprocity to aid their resilience and continue the work they do’

It was also apparent that civil society groups in the Caribbean need to develop financial resilience in the face of multiple challenges, including: reductions in donor funding, increased competition between organisations, and changes in the global economy. Working in civil society is often associated with having several part-time occupations, and often working during unpaid hours over evenings and weekends.. Not knowing where funding for the next project might come from also increases anxiety levels. This insecurity has the potential to reduce human resources and human capital in the sector. In the face of this, civil society groups have to be resilient to succeed. To build their resilience they are crafting multiple financial opportunities to sustain their work. This includes income-generating schemes within the organisation and engaging with the corporate sector and philanthropic institutions. Diaspora groups also offer a valuable source of revenue and other forms of social support. Many are starting to utilise technological advances such as PayPal and crowdfunding to maximise their financial connections to diaspora groups. Users of crowdfunding felt that the system had the potential to create more democratic relations between donors and civil society.

Civil society groups are also promoting their resilience through social connections, with friendships, for example, providing morale. Groups also: mentor each other, use volunteers, and commit to a culture of reciprocity to aid their resilience and continue the work they do.

In the future, developing networks between locally based organisations across the Caribbean region could allow the sharing of experience and resources and build solidarity. Civil society in the Caribbean may also benefit from meeting in informal settings to build a feeling of solidarity, share experiences, and share expertise. This could provide a forum to discuss wider issues that may be relevant for the sector. Such a forum may also offer moral and emotional support for civil society groups during challenging times.

Civil society groups need to be resilient if they are to sustain their work and identity as a sector that promotes social justice. The idea of civil society resilience promotes the ever-changing nature of the sector and the need to be versatile and adaptable. A key question is: what is the role of the international community in helping civil society groups become more resilient?

Sarah Peck is a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) candidate at the University of Sheffield.

Following the money: cash transfers

Posted on by Commonwealth Foundation

(Above) Helen Mudora presents project results at the Foundation’s annual grants workshop. The workshop shares monitoring and evaluation techniques with new grants partners and provides opportunities for networking and knowledge sharing.

Earlier this month, Helen Mudora, Programme Manager at Africa Platform for Social Protection (APSP), presented the results of her organisation’s project ‘Enhancing accountability for cash transfer programmes’ to our new cohort of grantees and our Board members at the annual Commonwealth Foundation grants workshop.

APSP’s project is being delivered in the counties of Busia, Kilifi and Kajiado in Kenya. In this interview, Helen discussed some results and lessons the project has generated with Gillian Cooper from the Knowledge, Learning and Communications team.

Gillian: What are social protection cash transfers?

Helen: The Africa Union defines social protection as: ‘responses by the state and society to protect citizens from risks, vulnerabilities and deprivations. It also includes strategies and programmes aimed at ensuring a minimum standard of livelihood for all people in a given country. This entails measures to secure education and health care, social welfare, livelihoods, access to a stable income, as well as employment’.

Social protection is largely seen to have three pillars: health insurance, social security, and social assistance.  In Kenya, the three most common social assistance programmes include the Orphans and Vulnerable Children cash transfer (OVC-CT), the Older Persons cash transfer (OPCT) and the Persons with Severe Disabilities cash transfer (PWSD-CT).

‘Cash transfers have transformed the lives of thousands of people who would ordinarily find it a challenge to meet even their basic needs.’

The orphans and vulnerable children cash transfer programme was started by UNICEF as a pilot, mainly as a response to the crisis of HIV orphans. It is now funded by the government and gradually over time has included all children who face poverty and vulnerability.

Cash transfer programmes for older persons respond to the unique challenges faced by older persons including low income levels and destitution.

The Persons with Severe Disabilities cash transfer programme was started to meet the basic needs of carer families who may not be in a position to find time to generate income because of caring responsiblities for a family member with a severe disability.

In many countries, the poorest of the poor are PwDs. They face multiple barriers – the system disadvantages PwDs from earning an income. They don’t have access to services and there’s no transport to take them to school. Without schooling there is a close correlation to poverty – only about 5% of PwDs in Kenya make it to university – and so the PwDs cash transfer helps to redress this imbalance. Cash transfers have transformed the lives of thousands of people who would ordinarily find it a challenge to meet even their basic needs.

Gillian: What did APSP’s community sensitisation and social audits uncover about the cash transfer programme?

Helen: APSP works with communities to promote citizen engagement in the delivery of cash transfer services through social audits. We identify community organisations to work with, who in turn identify community monitors who form the link between government programmes, citizens, and beneficiaries.

APSP trains the community monitors in social protection, rights-based approaches and advocacy.

Community sensitisation forums are held to increase awareness levels of the communities and citizens about existing social protection programmes. APSP, in collaboration with community groups, then conduct a social audit of government programmes.

The social audit is a deeper way of generating evidence to inform policy.

This entails collecting data on various parameters of the government service charter, including timeliness of payments, distance to collection points, dignity in service delivery, awareness of existing government programmes, as well as impact of the cash transfers.

‘APSP is conscious to strike a balance, making sure not to undermine the relationship with government and manage the politics so it does not become confrontational.’

Our audits have found that some people in rural areas have to walk more than 6km, sometimes 7km, to collect the cash.  In the urban areas this is not a problem as the service has been more decentralised and the road infrastructure is good. In rural areas beneficiaries walk longer distances to access the cash. We also found that the timeliness of payments varies. 50% say they get their payments on time. 33% have to wait about 6 months. For the rest, the time varies, some have delays more than six months.

We also looked at the length of time it takes to receive the cash at the bank. It was noted that because those who receive the cash are few in number, there is often a long line especially considering people have a short two week window within which to be paid.

Finally, the audit looked at the complaints and redress mechanism. We found that this has been poorly publicised as not many people know about the government toll free number, where they can report any challenges or issues. Currently the complaints process is still centralised at the headquarters in Nairobi, but the complaints might be made from 400km away! We are recommending that the complaints mechanism is decentralised so that people can lodge complaints and have it resolved at the community level.

Social accountability is about pushing for effective service delivery. What the government says it’s going to do should be done within the promised timeframe. That’s what it means to provide cash transfers as a right. APSP is trying to discourage tokenism and help community members realise that the cash transfer is a right. We’ve worked to build the confidence of the community so that if they find a problem, they have a right to complain and the government has an obligation to listen.

Gillian: What have been the most effective ways to track progress and ensure government accountability?

Helen: Evidence. You must generate evidence. For a long time, individuals would make complaints, but when you make a complaint as an individual, it’s not sufficient. But it becomes evidence when you bring in a bit of science, and present it as a research finding which shows that a particular phenomenon is a part of a bigger picture. And so, this project has helped us to move from individuals complaining, to a collective approach that generates evidence to inform policy.

‘Building capacity is about supporting marginalised groups to make their voice heard in a way that makes policy makers listen and respect them.’

Gillian: How has the project addressed gendered needs?

Helen: This is a work in progress. For starters, whenever we do community mobilisation, we always ask for a specific number of women and men. At the beginning, when you mobilise people to come together, you must make sure you get both men and women. You might not get a 50-50 ratio, but it’s important to set this as a target so that at least you will get a considerable number of women. For trainings we go the extra mile to get women to participate; we might need a sensitisation meeting to encourage participation.

We respect and are conscious of the triple roles of women. So for the community sensitisation forums, our starting time must take account of when women have completed their morning routine. We start at 9 or 10 and by 12:30 we must finish. If the timing is not right they will not come at all.  We have also built the capacity of women to articulate their issues in different fora. For APSP’s international meetings, we make sure women from project communities are on the programme to speak.

Gillian: How does APSP engage with government to make change?

Helen: We seek opportunities to sit with government and meet in their Boardroom. We always request meetings with the Permanent Secretary in her/his Boardroom so that we share these findings with them first before it goes public. APSP is conscious to strike a balance, making sure not to undermine the relationship with government and manage the politics so it does not become confrontational. APSP is part of the National Steering Committee for Social Protection, which is a government constituted committee. This shows they have faith in our work.

Our engagement has paid off; APSP’s research has influenced the process of cash disbursement. In 2018, the government started a universal cash transfer for older people. Previous cash transfers were provided at only two banks. Now there are five banks from which to choose from. In addition, clients are given an ATM card, so they can access the money at any time.

We also engage in the legislative process. Social protection is in the constitution but there is no subsidiary law to enshrine the cash transfer system. APSP has been working with both Parliament and the Executive arm. We try to balance our engagement so we are not leaning on one side. Parliament now invite us to the departmental committee meetings and we are working with them to pass that law.

Gillian: How should marginalised groups be included in decision-making about policies that affect their lives?

Helen: Capacity building is very important. Building capacity is about supporting marginalised groups to make their voice heard in a way that makes policy makers listen and respect them. The voice is there but how they voice it may mean nobody can listen to them. They may be voicing it through complaints or in anger or desperation.

Evidence generation is one way. People are less likely to doubt statistics – you don’t have to bang tables when you have data. The skills we’ve been able to build for the community has been intense but transformational.

We have developed an advocacy tool. It provides steps for engaging and how to make your message hard-hitting. The advocacy tool includes a monitoring guide to help track meetings and progress so you can attribute the impact of your work to a policy change.

Gillian: What are the next steps for your project?

Helen: We are hoping our experiences can be used to replicate the project in other counties in Kenya.  We can also replicate it in other countries – APSP works in 27. The project provides a very good basis for knowledge sharing. When we have our delegates meeting in August, grassroots representatives are part of the programme. We can show it as a model of citizen engagement in decision-making.

Beyond that our long term goal is for sustainability of social protection programmes. Our bigger advocacy agenda is around national budgets and processes. In many countries, social protection is funded by donors. In Kenya it is now 97% government funded but in other countries it is 100% donor funded. So where is the government commitment? We aim to push for social protection allocations from national budgets to meet the African Union  Social policy framework – which states that every government should use 2% of its budget on social protection so that it is sustainable and not dependent on external donors.

Helen Mudora is Programme Manager at Africa Platform for Social Protection