|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: Making Connections for Africa
Africa: Making Connections for Africa Date distributed (ymd): 971022
APIC Document
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +economy/development+ +US policy focus+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains the Contents and Foreword of the new APIC book, Making
Connections for Africa: Report from a Constituency Builders' Dialogue.
The Foreword provides an overview of the opportunities and obstacles for
constituency-building for Africa advocacy in the United States today. The
posting also includes the announcement of the appointment of Dr. Pearl-Alice
Marsh as APIC Acting Executive Director.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
APIC is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Pearl-Alice Marsh
as its Acting Executive Director. The Executive Director post has been
vacant since April, when Imani Countess accepted as new position as Congressional
Liaison Officer for the African Development Foundation. When the search
process for a new permanent Executive Director did not result in selection
of a candidate for the position, Dr. Marsh accepted the invitation by the
APIC board to serve full-time in an Acting capacity. Dr. Marsh will serve
until a new search process is launched and completed, and is assuming full
responsibility for expanded APIC fundraising and program oversight during
this period of important growth for the organization.
Dr. Marsh received her doctorate in political science from the University
of California at Berkeley in 1984, with a dissertation on the rise of the
African trade union movement in South Africa. She has extensive professional
experience, as well as a long record of engagement in Africa advocacy,
local community service and activism, particularly in the Berkeley area,
and a distinguished record of publications. From 1986-1993 she served as
Program Director, Center for African Studies, University of California,
Berkeley and Coordinator, Berkeley-Stanford Joint Center for African Studies.
Between 1993 and 1997 she was Senior Research Associate at the Joint Center
for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, with responsibility for
administering the Joint Center's programs in South Africa. Among her recent
publications is Young Lions Speak: Youth Policy in the New South Africa,
co-edited with Eve Thompson (Institute for Multi-Party Democracy, South
Africa and Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Washington,
1997).
The Africa Policy Information Center announces the publication of *Making
Connections for Africa: Report from a Constituency Builders' Dialogue.*
The Constituency Builders' Dialogue, organized by the Africa Policy
Information Center, was held at Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia, over
the weekend of January 10-12, 1997. The Dialogue was designed as an opportunity
for a diverse group of activists from different sectors of Africa advocacy
work in the United States to step back, reflect and engage in dialogue
on the strategic directions for grassroots Africa constituency-building
in the current period. The Dialogue was made possible by a grant from the
Carnegie Corporation of New York, and by ongoing support from the Ford
Foundation.
*Making Connections for Africa* contains a summary of the dialogue discussions,
together with three background papers prepared especially for the Dialogue.
These explore insights drawn from social movement theory, interest group
research, and practical experience. This posting contains the book's Contents
and Foreword, as well as an order form.
CONTENTS
Foreword * Imani Countess, APIC Executive Director, 1992-97
Building a Constituency for Africa: Implications of Social Movement
Theory * Doug McAdam, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona
American Interest Group Research: Implications for Africa Constituency
Building * Linda Williams, Department of Government and Politics, University
of Maryland
Making Connections for Africa: Constituencies, Movements, Interest Groups,
Coalitions, and Conventional Wisdoms * William Minter, APIC Senior Research
Fellow
Summary Report of Proceedings * Loretta Hobbs
List of Participants
Further Reading
Contributors
FOREWORD
Foreign policy is historically one of the areas of government most resistant
to democratic accountability. With easy resort to appeals to national unity
and the prominence of officials drawn from elite societal backgrounds,
even Congress generally defers to those who claim to have privileged insights
based on insider information. For the most part, the public remains uninvolved.
In rare cases, however, citizen advocacy has had profound impact. The anti-apartheid
movement in the 1980s is one case in point. Although at this writing the
outcome is not clear, another instance is the current worldwide movement
to ban landmines, which has already significantly changed the parameters
of debate.
US policy towards Africa is particularly in need of reinvigorated advocacy
by concerned citizens. The continent has been consistently subordinated
to other interests on the US foreign policy agenda, as in the Cold War,
or simply relegated to the margins, in parallel with the racial hierarchy
still profoundly determining other aspects of national life. Without greater
public engagement by those who care passionately about Africa, this situation
is unlikely to change.
Can it be different as we approach the new millennium? Can citizen advocacy
prove a counter-balance to the inertia of old stereotypes and priorities?
In this era of globalization and rapid technological advance, is the continent--perhaps
with the exception of a few "winners"-- destined to stay on the
margins of the agenda, with the exception of the occasional media splash
of a humanitarian horror story? Or can citizen advocacy help promote new
constructive and mutually beneficial ties that demonstrate US responsiveness
to new African realities and priorities?
The answer will depend on whether a critical mass of Americans can wake
up to the extraordinary range of initiatives being taken by Africans themselves
to move the continent forward, in what United Nations Secretary-General
Kofi Annan calls the "third wave" of Africa's post-independence
history. The first wave of decolonization and struggle against apartheid
was followed, he noted in his address to the Organization of African Unity
in mid-1997, by a period "too often marked by civil wars, the tyranny
of military rule, and economic stagnation." He called on Africans
in today's new era to reinforce a wave leading to "lasting peace,
based on democracy, human rights, and sustainable development."
The opening years of the new era also have seen both the depth of horror,
as in the Rwandan genocide, and extraordinary moments of hope, as in Nelson
Mandela's election in South Africa. Most other positive and negative signs
are more ambiguous. The path outlined by the Secretary-General will be
no easy road to walk, but the scope of African initiatives at all levels
makes it clear that Africa has now decisively stepped into its "Second
Independence" era.
The phrase "Second Independence," first coined by Congolese
revolutionaries in the 1960s, meant--and means--that the benefits of independence
must reach beyond a small elite. African peoples have formidable challenges
in this era of global competition and rising inequality. At the same time,
there is also a new horizon of possibilities and a new determination not
to repeat previous mistakes.
There are some recent signs of a growing awareness in the US policy
arena of such new African possibilities. Regrettably, however, statements
of intention are for the most part not yet matched by corresponding practical
policy changes and implementation. Africa and Africa's advocates within
the US political arena still lack the clout to force policymakers to pay
attention. The old stereotypes about Africa are still pervasive and disempowering.
The idea for the Constituency Builders' Dialogue came from our experience
at the Washington Office on Africa and the Africa Policy Information Center
in the first years of the post-apartheid, post-Cold War policy environment.
Our historical mandate had been defined by the struggle to complete Africa's
"First Independence"--freedom from colonial and white-minority
rule. We knew that this would not end the struggle for human rights, economic
development, and social justice. But it would--and did--end the relatively
easy clarity of such an obvious enemy as the apartheid system of South
Africa.
As we expanded our mandate to a wider range of issues and, geographically,
from Southern Africa to the entire continent, it was clear to us that there
are a host of allied groups engaged in the same struggles--some country-specific,
some specific to a particular issue area such as human rights or debt relief.
As we and our coalition partners struggled defensively against cuts in
almost all budgets related to African issues, organized to support the
Nigeria pro-democracy movement, and sought to galvanize informed international
engagement in response to crises in the Great Lakes, Liberia, and elsewhere--to
name only a few issues that have recently engaged Africa advocates--one
point kept resurfacing. Whatever the virtues of the proposals put forward
by advocacy groups, getting them on the policymakers' radar screens--much
less adopted and implemented--required a level of political influence that
eluded us all.
Virtually everyone concerned with Africa policy, from Africa specialists
within government to grassroots human-rights activists, talked of the need
to build more powerful constituencies to fight against the marginalization
of African concerns. Most were themselves engaged in one or another aspect
of this effort, to the extent that organizational mandates allowed. Yet
the efforts, while having some impact, seemed to add up to less rather
than more than the sum of their parts. Often one group was not even aware
of what another was doing, and it was not clear whether everyone meant
the same thing by "constituency building."
The purpose of the dialogue was to enable some of us to step back to
reflect, in the changed African and US context of the late 1990s, on our
experiences and priorities for "constituency building" for Africa
advocacy. We were under no illusion that we--or those we gathered for dialogue--had
definitive answers, or that we would emerge from the dialogue with clear
"marching orders." However, we were convinced that dialogue and
analytical reflection on strategy--beyond the immediate imperatives of
crisis response and organizational campaigns--were essential to our joint
future and effectiveness.
For this kind of conversation, we wanted a group that was large enough
to encompass much of the diversity within the Africa advocacy community,
but not so large as to make it an unwieldy and elaborate conference. The
dialogue planning committee worked diligently, and largely successfully,
to ensure a balance along lines of race, national origin, gender, age,
region within the United States, and organizational issue area. Participants
were invited in their individual capacities, not as representatives of
organizations. Given constraints including complicated personal schedules
and logistics, a number of those invited were unable to attend. The East
Coast was still overrepresented and youth were underrepresented. Nevertheless,
in terms of experience and background, the group represented a wide range
of those involved in nongovernmental advocacy for social justice, democracy,
human rights, and sustainable development in Africa. (See list of participants,
page 83.) We were aware--and discussions in the dialogue confirmed--that
there are many other kinds of ties with Africa also relevant to building
constituency. (Cultural links and business links particularly come to mind.)
This dialogue, however, and the group gathered for it, was particularly
focused on issue advocacy.
Convinced of the need for more systematic analysis of the prospects
for policy advocacy, we asked several experienced scholars to prepare background
working papers for our discussion. These appear in this volume. Doug McAdam,
a sociologist specializing in social movements, and Linda Williams, a political
scientist who has focused on recent African American political organization,
agreed to draw out some of the implications of recent scholarship for us.
APIC Senior Research Fellow William Minter was asked to reflect on the
recent experience of Africa advocacy in particular.
Our process was also based on the conviction that every participant
was also an "expert," bringing experience and insight. Maureen
Burke of the Advocacy Institute and Loretta Hobbs, our rapporteur, of O'Neal-Hobbs
Associates helped lead the planning committee in trying to ensure that
the dialogue was consistently interactive. Rachel Diggs not only skillfully
served as our logistics coordinator, but also brought her insights both
as a "refugee" and as an experienced participant in organizations
from the grassroots to multilateral bureaucracies.
The result, participants felt, was extremely productive in terms of
shared reflection and new insights. We may have wished for even more, in
terms of clearly formulated and agreed common strategies only in need of
being implemented. Such an outcome, however, can only result from a much
wider dialogue in many different venues. We hope this publication can stimulate
and contribute to that wider dialogue.
I cannot--and should not try to--sum up all the insights from the dialogue
in this brief foreword. The essays and the summary of proceedings are rich
sources of both insights and questions. I encourage you to read actively
and take the debate into greater depth in your own thinking. I do want
to single out, however, a few key points that particularly stood out to
me.
One was Doug McAdam's point that social movements don't just "happen."
What he terms "mobilizing structures" at different levels are
central to making things happen. Movements require organizers with the
capacity to target and mobilize specific constituencies--and to lay out
"enormous expenditures of time and energy." He concludes with
a key question: "does such a cadre of organizers exist [for building
a domestic conscience constituency for Africa] and, if not, what are the
prospects for assembling one?"
A second point, stressed in McAdam's paper and echoed in comments by
many other participants, was the importance of how issues are framed, by
organizations and by the media. To cite only one example, the successes
of the anti-apartheid movement in the mid-1980s, in the midst of the conservative
Reagan era, came in large part from the way the issue was framed as a basic
issue of racial justice. When African issues are framed instead by stereotypes
such as "ancient tribal rivalries" or aid "giveaways"
to undeserving poor, the possibility of successful political advocacy is
burdened in advance with almost insuperable obstacles.
Linda Williams brought out one particularly central "framing"
issue when she noted that typically African issues moved high on the agenda
for African Americans only when perceived through the same lens as domestic
racial injustice. The challenge now, she concluded, is to make the connection
when the issue is not clearly "race," and in particular when
African popular struggles are pitted against domestic tyrannies. "Without
race as an anchor for deciding which side to take," she notes, "unity
is more difficult for African American interests to maintain." More
recently, Congressional Black Caucus chairperson Maxine Waters has stressed
the same issue, denouncing lobbyists of the Nigerian military regime and
calling for the American black community to "part company with African
dictatorships and their US supporters."
The "framing" and "mobilizing" themes were brought
out repeatedly in different forms in discussion and in exercises aimed
at exploring strategies together. It clearly emerged that both the "message"
and the "messengers" were key components in determining whether
broader constituencies could be mobilized for African concerns. Bill Minter's
paper stressed the diversity of those already involved or potentially involved
in African concerns, and the need to define more precisely who could be
unified or mobilized around what particular issues. He, as well as other
participants, emphasized that the issue of joint involvement of recent
African immigrants, other African Americans, and other Americans in Africa
advocacy could not be separated from domestic issues of racial justice
and diversity.
While participants did not arrive at a final definition of "constituency
building," they did identify two contrasting approaches. One was labeled
the "more is better" school, which identifies the key issue as
isolation of Africa from mainstream policy concerns and tends to argue
that what Africa primarily needs is more attention and more incorporation
into mainstream agenda areas such as trade and investment in particular.
Participants at the dialogue strongly identified with another approach,
stressing that "more" was not necessarily "better."
Both approaches oppose the marginalization of Africa, and advocate energetic
organizing to gain a fair share for Africa on the national foreign policy
agenda. But, participants stressed, it is not enough to be "for Africa."
Values and goals matter. It matters what interests in Africa particular
US involvements support. Africa advocates should not limit themselves to
lobbying for "more" for Africa. Campaigns must be directed at
supporting goals of social justice, human rights, political participation,
and sustainable development that benefit African peoples, not just elites.
Neither domestic issues of racial justice and diversity nor the issue
of the role of Africa in US foreign policy can be adequately addressed
merely through "inclusion" within an unaltered and unreformed
mainstream agenda. The failure to confront the legacy and present reality
of domestic racial inequality reveals unresolved structural flaws in the
construction of the "American dream." So too, the failure to
address the role of Africa reveals the lack of a politically powerful paradigm
for constructive US participation as partner in the global struggle for
social justice and equitable development. If the United States is to find
a post-Cold-War role as a constructive world citizen, rather than as global
policeman, short-sighted market leader, or isolationist giant, Africa and
Africa advocates will have to play an active role in the rethinking.
As we move towards the millennium and beyond, more powerful "voices
for Africa" must also be voices for a new vision of the United States
in the world, a world which is not just a world of trade and of military
threats, and not limited to the market "winners," but a world
of people seeking peace, justice, and human development in all its forms.
Advocacy for Africa, in the final analysis, is advocacy for ourselves and
for the values we want to prevail at home and abroad.
It will not be easy. But I am confident that the organizers and the
strategies will be found.
Imani Countess
Executive Director, 1992-1997
Africa Policy Information Center
ORDER FORM
APIC individual membership @ $30.00 each $ _____
(APIC members receive copies of all publications. Join now and receive
your free copy of Making Connections for Africa along with your membership!)
APIC associate membership @ $50.00 each $ _____
(APIC associates receive both APIC publications and the Africa advocacy
materials of the Washington Office on Africa.)
Making Connections for Africa @ $8.95 each $ _____
Shipping & handling @ $2.50 first book, $1 ea. add'l $ _____
Total enclosed $ _____
Name:
Organization:
Address:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Please return completed form to:
Africa Policy Information Center 110 Maryland Ave., NE, Suite 509 Washington,
D.C. 20002, USA Tel: 202-546-7961 Fax: 202-546-1545 E-mail: [email protected]
Please make checks payable to APIC and remit in US$. Allow 4-6 weeks
for delivery. Current APIC members will automatically receive a copy of
this publication but may use this form to order additional copies.
This material is produced and distributed by the Africa Policy Information
Center (APIC), the educational affiliate of the Washington Office on Africa.
APIC's primary objective is to widen the policy debate in the United States
around African issues and the U.S. role in Africa, by providing accessible
policy-relevant information and analysis usable by a wide range of groups
and individuals.
|
