chen people first hear about the nature of Citizen Advocacy, some will often query the status of

advocates, in terms of the recognition and authority accorded to their role in representing
individual people with disabilities. Typically, in response, we would point to the following
indicators of the legitimacy of a citizen advocate¶s role.

(i) t least in Nigeria , Citizen Advocacy is funded, and mandated, by one level of government
(democratic Government) to undertake its mission of facilitating independent, personal advocacy
for people with disabilities by suitable citizens.

(ii)
ore recently, legislation-derived standards -- e.g., the Disability Services Standards --
which are intended to regulate (at least in theory) the conduct of government-run or government-
funded agencies, clearly refer to, and acknowledge the role of, advocates in representing people
with disabilities who are clients of such services. Thus, in relation to the above two points, it may
be argued that the ostensible

Imprimature of government -- as manifested in legislation and, derivatively, prescribed standards

--can provide a citizen advocate with a "legitimate" entrée in embarking on his/her advocacy
role.

(iii)
ost importantly, however, is the "standing" an advocate can develop, as a concerned and
committed party, especially through continuity and depth of involvement with the prestige. It is
this third point, the nature and implications of advocate standing, which is explored hereon.

O


 

 


  |

tanding, as the term is used here, refers to the Y
     

   
    
Y
   
, particularly when acting on behalf of the other person. For example, parents
will generally have high standing in their role of raising -- and making decisions for -- their
children, at least until the siblings reach a certain age. Clearly, in the context of Citizen
Advocacy, standing attributed to, or gained by, the citizen advocate is crucial, since the
advocate¶s role is to represent the interests of his/her protege.

^sually when a match is arranged by the Citizen Advocacy office, the advocate will not have
had any prior involvement with, or obligation to, the protege -- unlike, for example, family
members of the protégé, presuming there is active family presence -- and so the advocate¶s
"credentials" may be questioned by at least some parties. Particularly in those instances where
the advocacy is directed "against" some party (say, an agency of which the protege is a service
recipient), efforts are likely to be made by that party to undermine or delegitimize the role of the
feather-ruffling advocate. Obviously, in the above scenario, if the advocate has high standing --
clearly acknowledged legitimacy of representation -- it will be more difficult for the service-
providing agency to denigrate or dismiss the advocate. The advocate¶s standing, therefore, may
be of decisive importance in advancing the interests of his/her protege, especially in the face of
non-cooperation or hostility from other parties with competing interests.

u

 

   
 
|
ðn Citizen Advocacy, the potential exists for an advocate to acquire  standing by assuming a
formal role such as that of a guardian or adoptive parent, in certain situations. Of course, it is not
necessary, possible, or even desirable for the majority of citizen advocacy relationships to attain
a formal status. For example, if legal recognition is unduly accorded to a citizen advocacy
relationship, the (unnecessary) formality of the advocate¶s role will, at the very least, image the
protege as being less competent than he/she really is. (Observers are apt to conclude that the
person¶s incapacity -- and therefore comparatively greater need for protection, supervision, etc. -
- has necessitated the contrivance of a legally authorized response.)

onetheless, in other instances, it may be patently necessary -- even absolutely crucial -- for an
advocate¶s role to achieve legal standing in order to effectively protect the interests of his/her
protégé. For example, the assumption of the role of a guardian can give an advocate indisputably
recognized authority to make decisions for a person with decision-making difficulties who may
be targeted by, and vulnerable to, predatory parties.

º 

 

  

 


|  

|

s mentioned above, most citizen advocacy relationships will not and need not be sanctioned by
the law. As such, informal citizen advocacy relationships are analogous to culturally typical
associations formed in the larger society. On the one hand, the informality of a citizen advocacy
relationship can invite the possibility (as alluded to previously) that the status of the advocate¶s
role will be challenged by others who may have a vested interest in declaring the advocate to be
persona non grata to the protege. But an advocate who has a demonstrable commitment to his/her
protege will be less vulnerable to accusations such as those which anathematize the advocate as
an "undesirable presence" or "meddler." When a citizen advocate¶s presence and actions exude
an unequivocal commitment to his/her protege, it could be said that the advocate has earned

 or   standing. Dr Wolf Wolfensberger (the founder of Citizen Advocacy) has

observed that standing of this kind is likely to grow with the advocate¶s (i) 
   of
involvement, and (ii)  Y  of involvement, with the protege.

(i) Œbviously, an advocate¶s involvement with, and representation of, his protege over a
sustained period -- perhaps many years -- will fortify the credibility of the advocate, especially
given the reality that such an ongoing presence is typically uncommon in the ever-changing
relationship world of most people with disabilities.

(ii) dditionally, the depth and intensity of an advocate¶s engagement, in contrast to that which
is perfunctory or token in nature, can also confer standing to the advocate. A corollary to the
foregoing is that a citizen advocate who has a long-term association with his/her protege may
nonetheless have low standing, if the nature of his/her engagement remains at a superficial level -
- perhaps because it is characterised by infrequent contact with the protege, and/or a reluctance to
pursue advocacy goals for the person which place a demand on the advocate. On the other hand,
it may be possible for an advocate to increasingly gain standing, despite being in the role for a
relatively brief period of time, if the advocacy is conducted with depth, intensity, and in a state of
solidarity with the protege. Ultimately, then, an advocate¶s standing will correspondingly
increase with a "track record" of close and conscientious involvement.
Our historic cities face a hugely difficult task in trying to balance the needs of citizens and those
of the cultural heritage. Each player will have different priorities: our cultural heritage needs to
be protected and developed, but do citizens have the financial means to repair their historic
properties? Tourists invade our cities' streets in ever-increasing numbers, but our citizens need
space to live. There needs to be a coordinated approach which aims to preserve and sustain
historic sites while meeting the needs of residents in their daily lives. All stakeholders must be
involved in devising these coordinated policies. But how do we reach out to citizens and get
them involved in these processes?

There is much talk these days about the passiveness of citizens, how people¶s level of trust in
elected representatives and institutions is waning. They are less and less inclined to participate.
We need to find tools which will encourage citizens to engage in the preservation of our cultural
heritage. People are a great source of untapped potential, brimming with new ideas and
proposals. However these tools must also be able to maintain people¶s interest after their initial
engagement, their commitment and interest will dwindle if they see that their views and ideas are
not taken into account.

The Congress is well placed to foster citizens¶ participation in policy making as it is at local, or
grassroots level where citizens¶ involvement in democratic processes begins. Thanks to the
proximity of local and regional government to citizens, it is easier to learn about what people
need and expect from their local politicians. And because local level policies concern citizens
directly and have an impact on their immediate surroundings, they are more motivated to get
involved.

E-tools, or e-democracy, are another means for reaching out to citizens, especially those who
would not normally take part in political processes. E-democracy applications can be used to
organise citizen consultations or facilitate people¶s input into decision-making. They are an
excellent tool for informing citizens, ensuring they are fully aware of policies that affect them,
thus guaranteeing transparency.

Our symposium today is looking at integrated management plans. These plans are an ideal way
to ensure citizen participation in the management of cultural heritage sites because they
incorporate and respond to the needs of all users. They aim to identify all relevant stakeholders
who are concerned with creating attractive centers of historic value and to achieve their
sustainable urban development, while taking into account their necessary socio-economic and
environmental development. These integrated management plans have to reflect on how to
mobilize all stakeholders concerned, especially residents, and on which participation structures
should be used to ensure everyone¶s point of view is heard.

In conclusionmany more dramatic stories can be told which underline the centrality of
one¶s standing in the conduct of advocacy. A common theme surely would be that the advocate
who is seen to be consistently standing by his/her protege will acquire the stature so crucial to
effective representation of the person¶s interests. In that sense, it might be suggested that an
advocate could gain standing, by -- so to speak -- standing by his/her protege.