📜 What you can learn from the climate movement

We’ll go back to the interview series in the next newsletter. Today I’m sharing an article that Tom Brookes wrote for us several years ago. It’s one of the pieces that I refer back to frequently. He is specifically talking about his lessons from many years in climate politics, but I find his lessons readily applicable to many of the policy areas that we work on. They are of particular note today given the seismic changes in international development. You can read Tom Brookes’ original comments here - I have lightly edited the below. - Tom Hashemi

We will not win because we are right but because we are organised.

It makes sense that most of us think that if we can just communicate our point in a way that someone else understands, then they will accept the fact that we’re right. In reality, however, that does not work (and, indeed, never has). Changing perceptions is more important than winning an argument. A united perception can skip over who is right and who is wrong in pursuit of a mutual objective.

Good policy doesn’t adopt itself, it’s about politics.

The climate fight is inherently political. There is no actual debate over the science, the causes or the solutions to the climate crisis, only manufactured debate. This means that the blockers to policy are not a lack of understanding but of power.

Don’t mistake access for influence.

When communicators and policymakers work together, they can have conflicting priorities. For example, a policy-led strategy may want to limit communicators’ critique of a policy approach, or communicators may want to push a different, enabling narrative. To be effective, the inside game has to go hand in hand with the outside game.

TH: We’ve done a bunch of work using the outside game to shape the inside game incentive structure - hit reply if you’d like examples and discuss how this could apply to your policy area.

Don’t see change as linear; no political battle ever ends.

There is a tendency to look for points in the battle that are won, and on which we can therefore stop working. In reality, however, no battle is ever definitively won. Long-term investment in expertise, infrastructure and capacity is the only way to continue making progress. ‘Winning moments’ are easily reversed, cultural change is not.

We often behave like we don’t have an opposition.

Campaign decisions often take for granted that the political system functions, that the public interest is the primary driver, and that, broadly, people want to do the right thing. Some people don’t. The question: “What will the opposition do next?” should be asked in every strategy discussion.

TH: Consider ‘red teaming’ - get someone on your team to play opposition (or hire a consultancy for that role).

There is no ‘correct’ next step or ‘right’ intervention.

Theory of change is not the right functional alignment; alignment happens around objectives. If a community’s system incentivises collaboration, identifying gaps that need action becomes easier.

TH: Read: Toby Lowe - Explode on Impact for more on this.

Money needs to be conscious of its power.

Money can dictate what is worked on. It also often follows other money. Both of which can distort strategy. Everyone at every level of the system needs to stay humble.

Never allow an institution’s ongoing existence to become its primary objective.

In the business of making change in the world, it is people, beliefs, vision and commitment that matter a lot. Institutions matter less. The continued existence of an organisation is not a remit; it is the difference that an organisation can make that matters.