Published in Inroads, the newsletter of Citizen Advocacy Eastern Suburbs, Issue 5 (January - April, 1997)
These are located on the Citizen Advocacy Network website,
in the section on articles and policy documents.
I recall several years ago watching two documentaries on television, in the course of a week, which explored distinct, but related, themes pertaining to Bill Clinton’s political journey to the White House.
The first programme, entitled The War Room, follows Clinton on the campaign trail for the Presidency in 1992, and offers an insightful and engrossing behind-the-scenes look at how the spin doctors succeeded in moulding the presidential candidate into a politically palatable package. (The war room refers to Clinton’s campaign headquarters, the political nervecentre, from which strategies are planned and executed with military precision.) This filmed account provides clear evidence of how aspiring and practising politicians are compelled to step on the conveyor belt of the image-refurbishing factory, so that they can ultimately emerge from the production line -- perhaps displaying little resemblance to their former selves -- as a saleable product for the voting public.
The second documentary, Rector versus Clinton: The Killer and the Candidate, is more controversial in nature in that it raises questions as to whether the execution of a convicted killer owed more to political, rather than legal, reasons. In March 1991, Ricky Ray Rector from the State of Arkansas (of which Bill Clinton was governor) shot a doorman at a dance in a row over two dollars. When a policeman visited his home to investigate the crime, Rector killed him too, before shooting himself in the head. Amazingly, Rector survived -- but only after undergoing lifesaving surgery in which one-third of his brain had to be removed, impairing his mental faculties.
The US Constitution requires mental competency for a person to stand trial, but this did not save Rector. After all, he had committed the unforgivable crime: he was a black man who had killed two people, one of whom was a white policeman. The public was not on Rector’s side; they wanted, and expected, him to pay with his life. Thus, despite evidence of the severity of his impairment, he was executed by lethal injection in July 1992 -- the year of the presidential election.
The documentary theorises whether Democrat presidential candidate Bill Clinton -- formerly an opponent of the death penalty who, as governor, was empowered to grant clemency -- allowed the execution to go ahead to publicly dispel the perception that he was "soft on crime," a common accusation levelled at the Democrats by their Republican adversaries. The viewer is hence left to ponder the disturbing possibility that Rector was offered as the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency. If indeed that is true, it certainly would not have been the first time that a political candidate had undergone a pragmatic conversion on the road to the Damascus public office.
Without entering the arena of debate on the veracity of the theory advanced by the latter programme, it is nonetheless difficult to resist the inference, which is the common thread of bothdocumentaries, about the path to political success. That is, it does not require a quantum leap in reasoning to universalise the theme -- exemplified by, but not endemic to, the US political scene -- that a candidate, apparently more often than not, must adopt an ideologically mobile position which can easily move with the shifting winds of prevailing values, if he/she is to be compensated with a win at the election.
The nature of political representation, therefore, necessarily means that an elected official cannot consistently represent the interests of individual constituents, in those instances where their interests do not coincide with the interests or values of the larger society. Usually, given such a scenario, it is the interests of the larger society -- as typically defined by its power-wielding stratum -- which a politician will promote, in return for the political carrot of gaining or retaining public office.
Clearly, representing the collective interests of society can compete or conflict with representing the individual interests of its members. Moreover, compounding this potential conflict of interest is the additional conflict of the personal interests of a candidate to secure the all-important reward of the public’s vote.
With that in mind, it is instructive to contrast the representational role of an elected official (or a "political advocate") with that of a citizen advocate. One of the strengths of the concept of Citizen Advocacy is its emphasis on minimising those conflicts of interest which would otherwise encumber the advocate’s efforts to represent his/her protege’s interests effectively. In simple terms, the citizen advocate’s commitment is (i) personal and (ii) unpaid.
The nature of the advocate’s engagement is (i) personal, since he/she is involved in a one-to-one (or near one-to-one) relationship. The citizen advocate consequently responds to, and endeavours to meet, the fundamental needs of his/her protege -- and not of anyone else. The conflicts of interest and divided loyalties inherent in being all things to all people is thus avoided; the interests of other parties in the protege’s life, valid though some may be, are of secondary consideration to the advocate. Whilst mindful of the interests of others, a citizen advocate is nonetheless unequivocally on the side of his/her protege.
Furthermore, the advocacy role is (ii) unpaid: the advocate receives no material or other external compensation for his/her involvement. In the absence of extrinsic rewards -- which could otherwise control, influence, or impede the advocacy effort -- a citizen advocate is free to act in the sincerely perceived interests of his/her protege. So, unlike the proverbial hired gun, the advocate responds without a quid pro quo; and is able to remain independent and, correspondingly, loyal to the protege.
Advocate independence and primary loyalty to the protege are defining qualities of the citizen advocacy relationship. They lend power and relevance to the advocacy role. In an era of protean politics and tenuous values, these qualities are an enduring expression of the commitments citizens will make to each other.