By: Caroline Crossley
Throughout my time with the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Organization (ZELO), I was often met with a deep cynicism from locals when sharing that I was participating in a legal internship. The most common response I received was “Really? Working in law in Zimbabwe? Good luck with that”. I was initially surprised by this reaction. On paper, the country has a progressive constitution which provides extensive human rights protections (including socio-economic rights), an independent judiciary, institutional safeguards to ensure civil and political participation, and strict presidential term limits. In the area of environmental law, which was the focus of my internship, the state is held to constitutional obligations to provide a non-harmful environment for its current and future citizens, exceeding Canada’s state obligations. However, I quickly learned that there is a chasm between the formal and substantive legal protections that are afforded to Zimbabwean citizens.
So how do legal professionals navigate working in a landscape where the legitimacy of the law has been so significantly eroded? In the NGO context, this challenge is made ever-more apparent due to the bridge-like role which many organizations play between local communities and government actors, institutions, and policies. This was one of the greatest challenges which I observed my colleagues grapple with during my internship. Influencing legal and policy reform in Zimbabwe’s current political environment, especially as an NGO which is funded almost entirely by foreign international development agencies, is an endeavour which requires incredible tact, skill, and above all – patience.
From what I observed, the greatest asset in making progress with an institution lacking accountability is often the relationships built with those who are carrying out its mandate. At ZELO it was evident that after years of working with and against the government they know exactly who their allies are, and they actively tend to these relationships. This proximity to government actors, however, can often threaten the relationship of trust built with local communities and civil society. Ultimately, the strategic position to pursue objectives of community-advocacy in collaboration with the government requires a delicate balance which must be constantly revisited and re-evaluated. It’s this balance, more than any single case or reform, that shaped how I came to understand advocacy by the end of my internship.
My time with ZELO gave me the opportunity to gain a firsthand perspective on the diverse challenges which NGOs face in complex legal, political, and social contexts. By the end of my internship one point was made abundantly clear – in rights-based advocacy, the law is only a small fraction of the work. I used to view advocacy as more of a binary – us versus them. However, my internship taught me that in many cases relationship-building, with both sides, may be the most practical and effective way to protect the well-being of the communities you aim to serve. Where you can no longer rely on the effective enforcement of the law, alternative avenues for advocacy must be developed. I still don’t know exactly how NGOs balance this middle-ground between collaborators and adversaries with the state, but I do know that it requires a deep level of care, sustained will, and institutional wisdom.