None of us is totally happy with all the laws and regulations of the countries we live in. Some might not protect our rights well enough, others, on the contrary, might impose restrictions we don’t consider justified or might not be sufficiently clear, thus giving was to abuse. At API, we strongly believe that people can change laws and policies, and our advocacy record shows that we are right.
For many years, Cambodia has been infamous for having the highest number of traffic accidents per capita in the whole region, while in Phnom Penh, traffic rules used to be completely ignored by most vehicle drivers. But although drinking and driving or not stopping at the red light are still an issue today, the situation has definitely improved a lot recently, and this is mainly because a new, clearer traffic law was finally adopted in 2015. This, in turn, was only possible due to a sustained advocacy campaign API ran together with other civil society organisations and international development partners, or as part of the Cambodian Road Safety Network. While it is clear that the task of making traffic less of a life-threatening hazard is not yet fully accomplished and that there is more to be done in order to improve both the legal framework, and its implementation by traffic police, it is equally clear that determined efforts by citizens and the civil society can and did actually change the situation significantly. In other words, the breakthrough about the traffic law is a prime example proving that advocacy really works, and can lead to policy change.
It is true that not all our past advocacy initiatives materialised in an entirely satisfactory way. Most prominently, although we have been pushing for a law on the access to public information over the last more than 15 years, this law still has not been passed by the Cambodian Parliament. You can find a detailed account of our impact in this area by visiting this page. In a similar vein, API requested changes on the front of fighting graft in the country, yet, despite the adoption of an anti-corruption law back in 2010, bribery and self-dealing still remain pervasive problems at all levels of public administration, especially when it comes to land concessions, public procurements or licences for private investments. And although Cambodia is part of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), progress in this field has been particularly slow, as the latest Universal Periodic Reviews also show. However, something could be achieved even here, especially at the local level. Due to API’s insistence on more transparency, there is now much more clarity on the procedures and fees needed in order to request documents or services from local authorities.
Our most notable success in policy change has undoubtedly been at the local level. This is not only because the higher ranks of the country’s administration are harder to influence without a concerted effort involving numerous international actors, years of lobbying campaigns and accordingly high budget figures. It is also, and perhaps mainly due to API’s specific approach to advocacy. We seldom simply come up with an issue we consider relevant and proceed to advocating on it. Much rather, we start at the grassroots level, trying to find out what the real problems of the communities first, and only then aggregate the data on these concerns into more ambitious project plans or programme areas. The results of such an approach obviously take longer to become visible, and they are also more limited in scope than, say, a major change in national legislation. However, we do believe that our take on advocacy is more sustainable, and, at the end of the day, more democratic than if we were simply lobbying for our own priorities. A given initiative for policy change may be obviously necessary in order to meet common sense standards of human rights, accountability or efficiency, yet, if citizens by and large are not aware of that need, it is hard to imagine how such a change can be implemented and become part of everyday life, even assuming everybody in Government embraces it.
Thus, API is generally committed to advocate for policy changes in the way communities are administered first. Our constant focus on local democratic participation is described in detail here and here. We have also been concentrating specifically on improving the quality and efficiency of the public services offered at the local level by advocating for systemic change in the way these services are organised, delivered and assessed. By insisting on participatory and inclusive practices, for example while implementing the social accountability (I-SAF) reforms, we believe we are contributing to palpable improvements not only regarding the quality of schools or health centres, but also concerning the general attitude of service providers and their relationship to citizens as right holders. In other words, while some of our past projects did have the goal of directly intervening, say, for less abusive practices of granting land concessions, for more transparent budgets, or for more efficient public expenditure on education, most of our initiatives focus on changing the very framework within which all this is taking place. If we manage to push further for such structural changes, enabling citizens and civil society actors to participate meaningfully and systematically in all local decision making processes, then they in turn will be able to advocate for their issues, no matter if these are related to fisheries, infrastructure or birth certificates.
