Advocacy

Advocacy has two different meanings in the conflict resolution context. Lawyers use the term to describe what they do for their clients—they advocate, or represent their clients' interests, in negotiation, arbitration, and other adversarial proceedings. The term can also refer to what parties themselves do—they advocate a position in a negotiation, mediation, or political or legal process. In this sense, advocacy is closely related to community organizing and empowerment and is linked to efforts to bring about social change and remedy injustice. This kind of advocacy involves the identification of problems, interests, and goals (i.e., advocated solutions) as well as the implementation of the strategy and tactics necessary for achieving those goals (Kramer and Specht 1969, 8–9).

In some ways, advocacy and conflict resolution are similar. Both advocates and conflict resolvers (mediators, especially) share the goals of social justice and empowerment. They also share the goal of resolving conflicts by creating change, although the kind of change they seek may be different. Their methods differ as well.

First, mediators always work for both parties at the same time, trying to craft solutions that meet the needs of both parties simultaneously. Advocates usually work with one party only; they see the interests of that party as primary and will use any strategy or process—mediation or otherwise—to achieve their goals. Many advocates are suspicious of mediation and other conflict resolution processes based on consensus; some see it as a tool of oppression and co-optation, not empowerment and justice.
The goals of advocates and mediators are also different. Mediators are usually seeking win-win outcomes, whereas advocates are usually seeking a win for their side and don't particularly care about the outcome for the other side. Although this sounds crass, it is practical when facing situations that are not amenable to win-win solutions.
Similarly, mediators often try to equalize power differences between the parties, whereas advocates support this approach only if they begin with less power than the opponent. Since most advocates seek victory, not consensus, they reject power equalization efforts if they believe that they have the upper hand (Cunningham 1990, 35). Mediators also tend to focus more on the primacy of process, and advocates are more concerned about outcomes. Advocates see the process as a strategy for achieving their goals; it is not the goal itself.
Although community organizing and advocacy have been extremely successful in some areas in bringing about social change and improved justice, some observers of recent political processes see advocacy as the antithesis of collaborative problem solving and successful decision making. For instance, Larson and Chrislip observe that advocacy and grassroots organizing, as perfected in the 1960s and 1970s, empowered many veto groups and enabled them to stop the "old boys' network" from achieving its goals. These veto groups made leadership much more difficult, they say, because there was no longer a prevailing hierarchy. "No one has the authority to override others, yet many people are empowered to say no" (Larson and Chrislip 1994, 20–21). The result has been public policy gridlock.
"Numerous constituencies from all sectors have formed associations around common grievances, staking out every imaginable position on major issues. Each is convinced of the righteousness of its cause. Paranoid and hostile, they battle each other from mutually exclusive positions, their conflicting aims fragmenting power and political will. Most represent legitimate concerns, but few, unfortunately, speak for the broader interest of society" (Larson and Chrislip 1994, 21). This approach, they argue, invites polarization and detracts from our ability to solve complex public policy problems. "With no consensus, advocacy groups focus more on stopping others from implementing their solutions than on finding ways to solve problems. As advocacy oversimplifies and divides, it focuses attention on parochial interests rather than on the broader good" (Larson and Chrislip 1994, 22).
Although many advocates continue to use a divide-and-conquer strategy, others are becoming increasingly interested in consensus building and related approaches to problem solving. The Nature Conservancy, for instance, has long relied on negotiation and consensus-building efforts to achieve its environmental goals. Other environmental groups are beginning to use these strategies as well, realizing that consensus processes and advocacy do not need to be antithetical. If both advocates and third-party interveners learned more about the other's approaches, they would be more successful in their own.