ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE
NR 73 MARCH 2011
THE MISSING ELEMENT – THE EFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF CIVIL SOCIETY
A realistic analysis of costs and benefits of current drug policies
shows that prohibition is not only ineffective in solving problems,
but also associated with major economic and human costs that promote
the exclusion and the stigmatization of users.
When we think about changing this scenario, it is important to have in
mind the model of society we want to have and what are the tools
needed to be able to make the difference. In many countries around the
globe, and for many years, decisions concerning drug policy have been
in the hands of political leaders and oriented by international
agreements and conventions that do not take into account the
participation of important actors such as users, farmers, and health
workers.
A different model of decision making and a real drug policy reform are
issues that do not relate merely to public administration, to a
specific political party or the responsibilities of certain political
leaders. It is the society as a whole that should guide its own process
of change.
It is not possible to design an effective public policy, neither fair
nor efficient, nor of quality and satisfaction if there is not a
strong participation of concerned citizens. It is also not possible to
be a protagonist of changes if people are alienated by the current
status quo that many times feeds society with fear and pre-defined
“truths”.
In a majority of European countries and even at UN and EU levels,
either formal or informal consultations with the civil society have
been established. However, the domain of drug policy remains by far
the least welcome to new ideas coming from civil society. Anyone that
has been following consultation attempts made by governments and
multilateral international bodies would agree that [something is
missing in the drug policy field->article2740].
If on the one hand, we acknowledge that consultations with civil society
in the drug field are in place, on the other hand, the result of this
dialogue and its impact on actual change can be questioned. Two main
factors contribute to its lack of efficiency. One is the format of the
consultation that often brings together groups with opposite views
that have to reach a “final” consensus in a unique recommendation
paper. This would be equivalent to government deciding to consult
interest groups on a new tobacco regulation and requiring health
specialists and the tobacco industry find consensus on a unique set
of recommendations. In practice, the result is often the “lowest common denominator” having little if any impact.
The second factor could be described as follows: democratic governments acting
in a transparent and participatory way need to consult civil society,
but do they really want to listen? Today, even the most consolidated
democracies are being impaired by powerful lobby groups. The political
discourse is still heavily dominated by “a two-sector model” – the
state and the market – [leaving civil society’s ability to influence
important decisions seriously undermined->http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:UbzhGN7dq2cJ:www.wingsweb.org/download/global_civil_society.pdf+Johns+Hopkins+University+civil+society+organizations+political+discourse+%E2%80%98two-sector+model%E2%80%99&hl=en&gl=be&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShl3nk0n9dVMgeM1T1lXxh_dJf4JogUaouvUWM2IiYg0PIM0J0rmVOpzOTAnjB_rljZmYP14jzoEcyXM4jKxl8Cu_Xum3T6HIH6w5wWnVx75z5SIoU8Xf1KQxgKQ6AKInwxusiF&sig=AHIEtbTPD4xuyYpkQlw5GV8tOLZ-8cGXbA].
We may agree or disagree in terms of perspectives or ways to achieve
our aims. Some organizations or activists want to continue working
side by side with governments aiming at gradual changes through dialogues
and common projects, and some others prefer to work independently, bringing pressure to bear through opposition, or implementing solutions in the breach of
the law. Having different positions is good, the error would be to
make them absolute and ignorant to reality.
In the design of new drug policies we all collectively need to take
responsibility for change. The active participation of civil society
in a variety of sectors and levels is essential in this process. The
public debate should be informed by scientific evidence which helps to
clarify ideas when looking for strategies for change. It is important
to remember that we are able to position ourselves with autonomy, as
actors engaged in searching, taking decisions, promoting ruptures,
creating new discourses and possibilities, not becoming adapted to, but the
opposite, being actively inserted in the world.
We all know that citizens must be heard because they are the ones that
have to lead the process that determines their own health and social
conditions. Currently this voice is only effectively heard where
governments have considered that civil society participation is not
only an issue of rights and equity, but also the best way to face the
challenge of promoting the efficient use of resources
invested in public policy.
A meaningful engagement of civil society is the true sense of
democracy, and each of us needs to remind himself of this truth on a daily basis.
By Marisa Felicissimo, ENCOD Steering Committee member and Michaela
Bitarello, Psychologist, PhD
Creative Commons Attribution