Human Rights and Rule of Law Advocacy: Five Rules for Traction by John Morijn
Edited talk given at the occasions of a conference preceding Prof. Jasper Krommendijk’s inaugural lecture (Nijmegen, June 2024) and a Recharge Advocacy for Rights (RARE) seminar (The Hague, September 2023)
I want to talk about a topic we often skip over a little too easily: us. About how greater effectiveness of human rights and rule of law protection hinges on more effective human rights and rule of law defenders. We need to investigate the dark, infuriating, frustrating, yet essential craft of persuasion. We need to be more self-critical about what works well, and what does not, when trying to land a human rights and rule of law message with governments, EU institutions and in the media. I will be intentionally provocative. I hope that during the drinks there will still be people willing to talk with me.
I have worked in academia, national government, as a diplomat, from within different NGOs, as a consultant to politicians and ministries, and as a member of various official advisory bodies. I am involved in teaching, strategic litigation, media commenting, feedback on research reports and op-ed writing in the field of human rights and rule of law protection. I have made all the mistakes possible in all these different roles in terms of persuading absolutely nobody. However, what I have learned is that almost all these functions require the same set of considerations and points of attention for making that holy grail of traction in the real world, with people outside our bubble, just a bit likelier.
How to achieve that? I will provide five basic points to chew on - they are connected and sequential. The EU is my starting point, because it is what I mostly work on. But I think what I will say will often apply equally to other levels of government. I am talking mostly about work in the policy context, but academics interested in societal impact could also benefit. Persuasion is its own profession.
Let me start by giving you my list, and then elaborate each of them:
1/ A good idea, excellent analysis or valid criticism is never (ever) enough on its own (and phrasing a concern in terms of a human rights violation is NOT a magic formula)
2/ Don’t assume national governments and EU institutions are always the enemy (& that (opposition) parliamentarians, media, and other NGOs are always your friends)
3/ Spend a frustrating amount of time and energy on preparing your launch (and don’t underestimate the vital importance of framing and narration)
4/ Learn to explain the very same thing in different ways to different audiences (and be prepared to - what feels like - sleeping with the enemy in the process)
5/ Human rights and rule of law advocacy is a frustrating long game at the best of times: just make sure you fail better next time (and make some friends along the way)
I hope that my now I have awoken your interest – or ignited your fury. Here we go.
1/A good idea, excellent analysis or valid criticism is never (ever) enough on its own
We have all seen, read and written very many briefs that go something like this:
“Here is outrageous injustice X; here is the human rights and rule of law framework; clearly, if contrasted, this justifies immediate action by “the powers that be”; so, we must conclude that “they” should immediately “do something” about injustice X”
And then our frustration inevitably continues. Indeed, we may as well go outside during an autumn storm and scream our message directly into the wind. Nobody will feel addressed, absolutely nobody will move on the issue. Nothing at all happens.
Let me unpack this a bit, because it has various aspects – at least four.
First, the EU can only ever do something if there is a legal basis to act. The EU is not inherently a human rights or rule of law protection organisation. It’s a market integration scheme which grew add-ons over time operating the same principles. That is why, for example, media freedom and the media freedom act were discussed from the angle of an internal market harmonization clause. That is why we are linking budget to the rule of law because of macro-economic considerations and sound financial management, not because independent judges are a good idea, full stop. It is also why we are talking about mutual recognition of judgments dealing with people, and affecting their human rights rights, in the AFSJ – this was an internal market invention, dealing with cheese/wine, that got transplanted. It sounds extremely boring, but starting a pitch from a legal basis is crucial, because it also determines how you can package a message, and to whom – I will come back to that later.
Second, even with the initial angle right, you need to know the state of the debate on an issue. It never ceases to amaze me how many things, even with lots of cash behind them, are pitched with much fanfare without connecting to anything currently under discussion or launched without awareness of how files have moved along. Yes, it is a lot of work to figure out; but you need to do that first – otherwise zero-impact is certain.
Third, it is extremely common for any recommendations connecting to a valid legal base and currently active issue, not to identify in any detail who should do what, in what way, and in what capacity. I would be a millionaire if I had received a euro for every time “EU institutions” were addressed to do “some specific something”. But which EU institution? And are we addressing the Commission as legislative initiator, manager of EU funds, guardian of the treaties, or supervisor of an EU agency? Are we addressing the EP as legislator or controller of the Commission? And is it the Council, the European Council or the Member States? I also work as a reserve officer in the Dutch army. It is common there to work with the “5WH method” when drafting an order: who, what, where, when, why and how. Any human rights analysis resulting in a recommendation that is not 5WH is assured to have no traction. Human rights and rule of law advocacy may benefit from some more military precision.
A very common mistake, finally, is to expect that when mentioning the words “human rights” or “rule of law” all previously existing opposition will be instantly dropped, that the world will come to its senses, gets weak in the knees, and suddenly change for the better. If only. Using human rights and rule of law vocabulary only convinces the pre-converted. It alienates as much as it mobilises. More problematically, those who go about advocacy in that way are often insufficiently specific. Human rights are a means to an end, not ends in themselves. In advocacy it is often much more useful to verbalise the end and refer to human rights and the rule of law only as part of a broader package required for legality.
2/Don’t assume national governments and EU institutions are always the enemy (and that (opposition) parliamentarians, the media and even other NGOs always your friends)
When I was working in Brussels, at the Dutch Permanent Representation to the EU, one of my biggest frustrations was that even if we were one of the few Member States continuously trying to push a human rights and rule of law agenda, we received extremely limited actionable and innovative input from NGOs and scholars. It was mostly for any of the reasons I just mentioned – there is no shortcut to doing homework. But my point here is different.
Particularly NGO representatives coming to talk to us, particularly on contentious issues such as migration, very frequently approached me and my colleagues as if we were the very personification of the harm done by the government we happened to serve. It was then often assumed we fully identified with the policy, or with the dragging of feet on it. In other words: civil servants were seen as part of the problem, rather than essential for the solution.
My own experience is extremely different. And I am not talking here about my own actions and intentions as a civil servant – which are of course for others to judge, probably harshly – but about what I have been coming across since I left civil service. Most civil servants I deal with now, as a new outsider, are very open and willing to consider new angles, different takes. They are typically the best-informed people too, and some of the most knowledgeable experts.
That does not, of course, mean that any idea you pitch can just be taken on board. All four points I talked about in the previous point need to be right. Moreover, civil servants work in a hierarchy and a political context. They depend on ministers who care and are capable (a rare combination), and political pacts that govern and frame their work. It is an infuriatingly frustrating blend that eternally gravitates towards sustaining the status quo. But good civil servants, pushed by prepared NGOs (and scholars), will be willing to point you to relevant developments, windows of opportunity, angles and partners that could maximise tractions. Often they are your most direct way to impact.
As a flipside: don’t just assume that parliamentarians, or the media, or other NGOs, are always your most natural or useful allies. Each of them has their own agenda, logic and drawbacks. Media are great for short-term impact, and kick-starting and snow-balling attention, but very unpredictable – they are forever chasing the rabbit. Whether your issue is the rabbit-of-the-hour is often nothing more than luck. Parliamentarians linked to governing parties are typically more influential, but – like civil servants – bound by a political pact. Opposition parliamentarians are not bound by that, of course, but it is sometimes worthy of consideration whether you really want your issue owned and pushed by people who are currently out of power. More generally, pick your partners very carefully to ensure impact – more than once I have witnessed good ideas killed because of a loose cannon person belonging to one of many partners.
I am going to be much shorter on the next three points, because the first two are the two most important by far:
3/Spend a frustrating amount of time and energy on preparing your launch (and don’t underestimate the vital importance of framing and narration)
So, imagine you have an urgent issue, you have a solid base and a current file, and you have precise and actionable recommendations. Then you are ready to go at any time, right? Well, no! That is just the start!!
First, you need a really (really, really) good title for any product – a good frame, that immediately clarifies what you are addressing and who you are talking to, is vital.
Second, think very hard about narration, describing something visually and in non-technical fashion. This is perhaps the very hardest thing of all, because it rides on creativity (not necessarily a strong suit for many human rights and rule of law experts) and forces you to see how much you can simplify things within losing crucial nuance. Do this exercise: “how do I explain this to a non-technical and slightly sceptical crowd without mentioning “human rights”? “Taking this point from another angle: if you cannot explain things simply, perhaps your message is just insufficiently focused.
Third, you need to think about timing. Is there some hook in the policy agenda or the meeting schedule? If so – wait! It is often much, much harder to create your own wave. If you do want to create your own momentum – pre-inform and pre-brief journalists, provide them with your stuff under embargo beforehand.
4/Learn to explain the same thing in different ways to different audiences (and be prepared to what feels like sleeping with the enemy in the process)
Let me take you back to a formative moment for me. I was about to make a debut on Dutch national TV to explain some episode in Poland. You are sitting there, quite nervous, knowing you will be put on the spot with hundreds of thousands of people watching. You are all worked up about the latest rape of the rule of law in the EU. And then the anchor, clearly quite sceptical of the relevance of this item, asks you: but how is this relevant for the Dutch, and Dutch businesses? I was completely taken aback and improvised on the fly, giving a story about what could happen if I abandoned my life as a professor, used my freedom of establishment in the EU and opened a Dutch flower shop in Warsaw. About how I would then evidently meet with immediate success, and soon get into the crosshairs of local businesses with friendly relations to the government, which has already captured courts. Would this not endanger access to a fair solution and protection of my investment for my trademark efficient Dutch business?
Honestly, motivated by pointing out a gap between the law and reality, it felt unnatural and worked – like sleeping with the enemy. Yet, curiously, many people who watched asked me about precisely the flower-example afterwards. I soon found myself invited to give talks to business associations, and association of shareholders of Dutch companies doing trade in Poland. These were crowds that would normally never have me on their radar – and they had not previously been on mine. I had tapped into the reality of Dutch business of Dutch business being one of the biggest investors in Poland.
The paradox of many current problems is that the most effective way to protect human rights and the rule of law seems to be to not talk about them directly, but rather stress how a lack thereof impacts hard economics/accountancy/efficiency – remember that is the legal basis for the EU to act on each of these issues, after all. Indeed, what I have learned is that the best way to convince a critical mass of people is to explain things from their mindset, and preferably have multiple anchors for your story. Accidentally, I think it has made a better scholar in the process. Because there is no hiding place for any of your assumptions. If you cannot explain things simply, you do not exactly know what you are advocating for.
So, these are my first four points. It is very hard to get it all right – and things are never completely in your own hands. But there are no excuses for not being better prepared, to become more effective at convincing people, to become a master at the dark art of moving the needle. This brings me to the fifth and final point.
5/ Human rights and rule of law protection is a frustrating long game at the best of times: just make sure you fail better next time (and make some friends along the way)
In our line of work, we are used to playing the long game. We need to learn from mistakes and make achieving impact a bit more likely every time we try. We are actors in, not just advocates for, progressive realisation. Effectiveness of human rights is on us too. For that reason, I have always loved the great quote by Samuel Beckett
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
But I don’t want to finish on a citation of perhaps the most depressed ever Nobel Prize Laureate. In fact, I am quite optimistic about the possibilities of improving our effectiveness, for various reasons, and I want to share these with you to close.
First, look around you. There are many like you who care and opt to do this work instead of a job that may pay better but is less societally relevant. That is very powerful. We are a force to reckon with. We have the law behind us. We just need to learn how to become more effective – much more effective.
Second, young people care passionately. Some of you may know the work I do in mentoring the Our Rule of Law Foundation. This is a prize winning for-students-by-students project ran by my superstar former students (and current bosses) Anna, Elene and Zuza, focused on rule of law and human rights education. There are a ton of people willing to work with us and it has an impact because of students’ energy. A recent project they did, Vote4OurRuleofLaw, with first-time voters about first-time voting for the European Parliament elections led to social media campaigns in Portugal, Spain, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Hungary, Czechia, France and The Netherlands – these were viewed tens-of-thousands of times. I never worked with a more dedicated group. They learned the contents, they learned advocacy, and they took ownership – after all, it is their rule of law. Human rights and rule of law protection clearly has and is the future.
Third, unlike what we hear all the time in human rights and rule of law protection circles, money is not an issue. You are likely very surprised I am telling you this. But I want to keep you transfixed on the ball - and that is that we are in a battle of ideas above all. I recently worked with a few people to write a brief on the order and exercise of the EU rotating presidency, particularly in view of the prospect of Hungary holding it soon. It started with a simple question, and we worked on it for months in line with the above four points. We had about 24 different versions, tweaking language, angles, audience. We inserted and deleted recommendation up until the very end. The final version ended up covered by Politico Brussels Playbook some days in a row, I talked about it in the media in about 20 different member states, parliamentary questions were asked about it in a few different Member States, it was discussed by other pundits, and I helped brief a joined session of two different EP committees. It eventually led to a European Parliament resolution, and a series of European Parliament hearings to keep the issue on the agenda. An idea had transformed into a political debate in the real world. The budget was zero euro.
So here is my main message.
We, human rights and rule of law defenders, are in the wondrous business of creating something out of nothing.
We have many like-minded people, the law, as well as both history and the future on our side.
Next time we try to advocate for our cause, let us at the very least avoid all the mistakes I made so many times – and fail better.
Let us join forces and work together to make the intrinsic power of our superior ideas more intuitive to a critical mass of our fellow citizens.
That is on us.
