This week attended a meeting where a vocal member proudly said we are not taking a stand on the Voice to Parliament debate, and they wouldn’t support the YES campaign because their community was split on the Debate. The Said it’s our role to be impartial. I thought, ‘ If they worked in Ukraine right now, would you still stand by your impartiality?
As a social justice champion, I was shocked to hear that from a fellow NGO community professional. Still, at the same time, I understood the argument as I have made it myself on other occasions on different subjects.
As NGOs campaign for social justice, there comes a time when deciding whether to be impartial or to take a stand arises. It comes down to which organisational Value trumps the debate. Hiding behind one value in favour of another can be a cop-out.
Being impartial is vital to many NGOs, but when social justice campaigns like the Australian Voice of Parliament arise, the line can get blurred.
Knowing when to take a position is essential for a charity leader or community worker.
One of the crucial elements is first to identify the organisational goals. NGOs have a reason for existing and developing plans and strategies to meet them. A campaign supporting an organisation’s mission should help them decide whether to join any cause. This alignment allows the NGO to take a stand to accomplish both organisational goals and social justice objectives whilst being accountable to the diverse communities they serve.
Effective communication also plays a crucial role in deciding whether to take a stance. It is vital to be vocal about the sentiment behind a campaign and inform how it affects the people it represents.
However, an NGO should advocate, be informative, educative, and communicate openly without patronising. Helping people understand the reasons and benefits for supporting or not supporting so they can reach their own informed positions is still achievable regardless of the organisation taking its own professional stand. This allows the organisation to show solidarity while ensuring they are not just hopping on the bandwagon.
Another consideration for a charity leader or community worker when deciding whether to take a position is the consequences of the stance. Will the relationship with stakeholders, clients, or the government be affected? It is critical to weigh the costs and benefits of a campaign’s potential effects and decide whether to take a stance. Also, considering who is least heard or represented in the debate may affect your decision.
At times, taking a position could initiate critical conversations and lead to more significant outcomes, regardless of any conflict or criticism that could put the organisation at odds with its supporters. It’s a judgment call that ultimately should be driven by your Mission and community benefit and not one we should shy away from to have a peaceful life.
As with any social justice campaign, it is essential to be informed about the sentiments, needs and concerns of the community directly affected, such as First Nations people in the Voice to Parliament YES campaign of Australia.
An NGO can make a more informed decision by participating in conversations and forums to understand the community’s perspective. This will inform the type of advocacy or action needed to bring change within the community.
Finally, there is no right or wrong answer to this dilemma. NGOs can ensure their goals align with their missions while vocalising social justice issues.
By acknowledging that there is often a fine balance between being seen as neutral and taking a position, organisations can decide when to speak up and refrain.
Ideally, an NGO should be impartial but refrain from using it to be silent on adjacent social justice causes that align with its mission and values.
In conclusion, deciding whether to take a stand on social justice campaigns like the Yes to Voice to Parliament campaign for first nations people can be challenging for charities, but it is vital.
By aligning the campaign’s mission with the organisation’s mission and goals, an NGO can take a position without compromising its integrity.
Effective communication and involvement within the community are crucial to ensure the oneness of the cause and the relevance of the decision.
NGOs should strive to be impartial where necessary, but where there is an opportunity to affect social justice change, they should take a stand without fear of criticism. AN organisation’s integrity, being informed, and sensitivity should shield them from any fallout and keep them true to its values.
At the end of the day, it is up to each NGO to decide when and how they take a stand on social justice issues. When people in charge are mindful of their goals and mission statements while considering the impact of their actions, there is no shame in taking a position.
In my own view, it is hard to see how any agency with social justice values would remain silent on the issues of constitution recognition or Voice to Parliament.
To be clear, I say Vote YES.
To see why to see.
Leave a Reply