How to address your representative in the Govt. and preserve your environment

Consider this scenario played out each time your representative comes to attend a public meeting to 'answer' a public welfare issue in your ward:

Local citizens, up in arms against the state government over a proposed scheme in their neighbourhood, attend the 'public meeting' to confront the minister. They hope to represent their issue and connected problems, get media attention, and pin down the minister on broken promises and misleading or untrue statements.

The citizens do a terrific job of standard 'organising.' They turn out in truckloads even on a rainy weekend. They have placards from previous demonstrations, pass them out, picket, and chant outside the public ground. They had called the press ahead of time, and media turnout is healthy. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, this is where the citizens' planning stops. Once inside, they confront the minister, but he dodges each and every question - he lies, he denies previous statements and commitments, he defers issues to others, he uses the power of his office to intimidate, he cuts off certain topics in the interest of 'equal time for other issues.' The citizens have done a good job of filtering into the crowd, so the "next question" comes from a member of their group. Unfortunately (here is the problem), instead of continuing to press the minister on the same subject, the next person changes the topic, allowing the minister to give another superficial answer and move on.

The media has covered the event: The minister seems to have 'answered' all questions 'diplomatically' and the citizens are made to look marginal and foolish.

The citizens did everything by the book, and still they lost. Next time most of the citizens in the group would have a 'very good reason' NOT to come out to demonstrate next time. The day's work has done nothing to advance their issue and the minister probably feels confident that he can continue to hoodwink citizens' rights as he pushes his pet scheme to completion.

How could citizens do better?

Keep a 'Focus'

These citizens failed to keep their focus tight. As a result, the minister was able to give superficial answers on any number of aspects of the issue. Instead of following up on one (or two) most important aspect of the issue, the citizens were too eager to jump on to as many aspects as possible. One could almost hear them thinking, 'He wiggled out of that one --I'll nail him with this other issue!'

Plan a 'Theme'

Politicians plan 'themes' for their public appearances; there is no reason why citizens should not do likewise. They should think out the message they want to convey to their community by confronting the minister. Public officials are professionals in the art of confrontation. If you don't plan your attack well, skilful politicians will turn your words back on you, making you appear a shrill extremist, and painting themselves as victims.

Plan the 'News' item

Plan how you want the story to look in the media, then work backward. If you're confronting the minister, pick a specific issue - the most important one and the one that is easily understood by anyone unfamiliar with the details of your battle (these people are your real audience). Pick an issue that reveals clearly why your point of view makes sense and is the best option.

Expect a 'response'

Be prudent: think about the response you'll get; plan to counter that response. Here is how you could do it: Meet in advance and role-play. Have someone be the 'minister' and have him or her spout the excuses you expect to hear. These drills are invaluable. They double your effectiveness.

In the public ground scenario, the citizens come off as fuzzy and emotional; the minister appears fair and reasonable. If the citizens had planned and practised the exchange, the citizens could have hammered the minister on a specific point and, while still being polite, would have revealed that the minister was waffling.

Record Everything!

The other key to holding officials accountable is to keep a video camera in their faces all the time. The one real power citizens hold over elected officials is the power to make them accountable for their words and actions. If you can show politicians have lied, politicians become responsive.

This means keeping files of newspaper stories and correspondence from officials and being able to pull out anything on a moment's notice. One of the most effective tools is a chronology. Have someone write down the details of events as they unfold, in the order that they happened, and note the sources of information (a reference to a document or a news story etc.). These chronologies draw a concise picture of a fight for a specific issue. They can be handed to the press (original sources referenced) and the citizens's debating skills are much sharper after the issue is chronicled and circulated.

A video camera is guaranteed to make politicians 50% more honest.

Once you've assembled detailed records, use them.

Citizens can definitely score on officials, confronting them with a history of broken promises and shifting positions.

Take 'references' to the meeting

A criterion in selecting your 'theme of the day' should be your written and taped records of a public official's position on the issue. Take copies of press reports with you to the minister's "public meeting."

In every encounter with a public official, be polite and calm. Nothing aids a politician more than a citizen on the brink of emotional frenzy. This can be difficult because we are fighting for our homes and families and many politicians are willing to sell us out.

Pay attention to the process

As we saw in the public ground, the citizens were right and had the facts, but the minister controlled the process. If this is a PUBLIC meeting, or a PUBLIC hearing, the process should be one that promotes REAL public participation. Too often, public hearings are nothing more than staged events to give the illusion that citizens' opinions are valued and taken seriously.

Ask the right questions

Government and most corporations like Monsanto learned long ago that winning public debate is not a matter of having the right answers - it is controlling the questions. The questions define the universe within which an issue is discussed. If you ask the right questions, any answer will further your cause. It is the citizens who need to control the agenda and challenge the basic assumptions behind the questions officials and industry are posing.

A typical public hearing opens with a presentation by the industry. They are given 45 minutes or an hour to explain the benefits of the proposed scheme, water lock, pulp mill, or waste dump. Industry often uses this time to present details and statistics that merely confuse everyone. Their idea is to convince people that the issue is too complicated for ordinary citizens to debate.

After the industry presentation, make sure the public gets the microphone for questions and comments. Often, each citizen is limited to two or three minutes, 'in the interest of fairness' to other eager citizens. In many cases, industry representatives are given time to respond to each citizen's comment, further reducing citizens' time.

In the worst cases, public hearings are held at times and places where most of the public cannot attend.

If you have a citizens' group working on the issue, make sure that the group gets the same amount of time that industry has, to present their point of view.

If you have no organised citizens' group but can line up a speaker (perhaps an independent expert or someone from a state or national environmental group), that person should be given time equal to industry's. Do not let the deck be stacked against the public.

Act immediately

As soon as you learn of a public hearing, call whoever is running it, ask about the format, and tell them you want equal time. This time should be in addition to, not instead of, time for comments from the floor. If the public official complains that this will make the public hearing too long, suggest that industry's time be halved and the remainder be given to the citizens.

If officials do not co-operate, get on the telephone to the media, and create controversy over the unfair process before the hearing. It's illegitimate and misleading to call it a public hearing if the public cannot have a say in deciding the process.

If, by the night of the public hearing, your viewpoint has not received equal time, you might consider shutting down the hearing. Try holding a rally INSIDE the public hearing room and make sure the hearing does not take place. Consider singing 'Saare Jahaan se Acchha . . ' loudly without stopping.

If the public is not given some way to say 'no' to a proposal, then 'public participation' is a sham.

Challenge basic assumptions of the speaker - not the facts!

While listening to an opponent, ask yourself: What is the basic assumption behind this person's argument?

Water polluters usually assume that the environment can assimilate a certain level of pollution, or that there is an 'acceptable' amount of human disease and death from pollution, or that this industry cannot survive if it is not allowed to pollute.

When it's your turn, don't challenge facts, challenge assumptions. (Industry would love to have you debate only the facts and questions they wish to debate.)

Challenge industry's right to dump ANYTHING dangerous into public water (or air or soil). Defy industry's claim that it has a right to harm one-in-a-million people. Make government and industry fully consider ALTERNATIVES. Turn the debate to the PRINCIPLES OF PRECAUTIONARY ACTION and CLEAN PRODUCTION; this will create a more honest debate on rights and responsibilities and WHO GETS TO DECIDE IN A DEMOCRACY. Soon you'll be discussing zero discharge and pollution prevention.

Remember who your audience is

This is one question you should ask yourself every time you speak in public. If you're going to a public meeting to take on the minister, your target is not the minister, it is your fellow citizens. Few public officials make decisions based on 'the right thing to do.' They make the decisions they are pressured into making.

Taking on public officials is only a tool for reaching out to your fellow citizens, showing them that they too can make government accountable.

The tool works best when used by many hands!

- Adapted by Vijaykumar Chalasani from a public domain document SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER (1993), by Mark Floegel