13. Elaboración de Policy Brief

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

Purpose of the session

• The talk connects previous sessions (community projects, communication/media training, campaign design) to a deeper focus on public problems and building stronger public-policy projects—projects that influence public policy rather than stopping at diagnosis.

What Constituyentes is

• Hackers for Our Future is described as a climate leadership school.
• Constituyentes is presented as a national activist network:
  • +200 activists across Mexico
  • Works through advocacy and community projects
  • Aims to “turn upside down” the rules that create inequality, injustice, and the climate crisis

Origin story

• Inspired by constitutional debates in Chile (~5 years earlier), which revealed that citizens in public spaces had different priorities than existing political elites.

Core learning: from diagnosis → proposal → political engagement

• A recurring challenge: many groups produce good diagnoses but struggle to turn them into clear proposals that decision-makers can act on.
• The session emphasizes moving beyond diagnosis toward:
  • Concrete proposals
  • Dialogue with decision-makers
  • Strategic use of participation mechanisms

How to identify public problems (transform “it’s bad” into policy)

• A “diagnosis” is not automatically a policy.
• A problem becomes public policy when people ask further questions:
  • Who is affected?
  • How are they affected?
  • What causes it?
  • Which institutions have authority to solve it?

Example

• “It’s getting hotter” becomes policy only when framed in terms like:
  • missing regulations / lack of prior consultation related to energy/extractive projects (e.g., wind farms) and community impacts.

Political capacity: build shared priorities to negotiate solutions

• Constituyentes describes building “political capacity” by connecting different social movements.
• They reached consensus on a political agenda (five priorities) not because they’re the biggest issues overall, but because the network can focus jointly on them despite different struggles.

Strategy for influencing policy

• Two broad paths depending on alignment with the ruling coalition:
  • When there’s agreement: use traditional lobbying / legislative initiative drafting.
  • When there’s disagreement: use direct participation mechanisms (citizen initiatives, plebiscites, public hearings, etc.).

How to choose the “best mechanism” (and where to send the proposal)

• Step 1: Identify the competent authority
  • Municipal vs state vs federal
  • Executive vs legislative
• Step 2: Determine the best delivery mechanism
  • Based on what resources/power you have (e.g., relationships vs none)
  • Based on whether you need legal change vs administrative change
• Recommendation: read local participation laws, because mechanisms differ by state.

Direct democracy tools are widespread in Mexico, but usability barriers exist

• Mexico is said to rank highly in legal accessibility compared to the world, but real-world use is limited because:
  • information on how to activate mechanisms is hidden or absent
  • thresholds and requirements vary drastically by state (e.g., signature requirements)
• Common complaint: “having the right but not being told when/how to apply,” and participation tools being left “in limbo.”

Practical adjustments to make participation tools effective

Suggested “tweaks” include:

• Require timelines for government response on citizen initiatives
• Ensure rejection/decisions happen publicly, to avoid issues staying frozen

Examples of mechanisms in action

• A new requirement for social impact statements in the energy sector is presented as a civil-society victory.
• Citizen initiatives / plebiscites / public hearings are discussed alongside real constraints, including “transcendence” barriers (tribunals deciding whether an issue is sufficiently relevant).

Communication and mobilization: persuade via story, not just arguments

• Repeated emphasis: the best approach is often storytelling and framing issues as collective.
• While arguments and science matter, persuasion often depends on narrative structure and emotional engagement.
• Story guidance includes:
  • Context
  • Problem (why it matters + evidence)
  • Proposal (what you specifically want to change)

Signature collection pitches

• The pitch varies by issue and public awareness level.
• Trust issues include explaining why voter-ID data is needed (INE process).
• Keep interactions time-aware (some people won’t want long explanations).

Motivating participation and overcoming skepticism

• Speakers argue that skepticism often reflects genuine interest and can create space for dialogue.
• Volunteering/momentum strategies:
  • celebrate small wins
  • adapt via trial and error (e.g., switch to WhatsApp volunteer recruitment)
  • mobilize using “anger, hope, or having a good time” (community-building)
• When opposition is loud:
  • avoid wasting time debating the opposition directly
  • focus on winning over the indifferent majority and build alliances/resources

Individual habits vs structural change (climate behavior and ethics)

• They discuss changing consumption behaviors (e.g., plastics/hyper-consumerism), but note:
  • individual action is constrained by comfort and convenience
  • corporate responsibility remains central
• They argue for cultural change and policy design that targets corporations, not just relying on prohibitions.

Future role of direct democracy and citizen participation

• Optimism that knowledge/usage will spread in “constituent assemblies,” potentially becoming more standardized and less dependent on where someone was born.
• Long-term goal: participation mechanisms can shift what gets discussed and expand citizen time and power to influence governance.

---

Methodologies / step-by-step instructions (detailed bullets)

A) Turning a demand into a concrete proposal (political framing workflow)

• Start with the diagnosis
  • Identify a situation clearly felt in the community (what’s happening).
• Convert diagnosis into a public policy problem
  • Ask:
    • Who is affected?
    • How are they affected?
    • What causes it?
    • Which institutions can solve it?
• Develop a targeted proposal
  • Provide:
    • what you want to change
    • why it matters (evidence + rationale)
    • what other places/countries have done (comparative best practices)
• Deliver through the appropriate political mechanism
  • Use either:
    • legislative initiative drafting (if aligned with the ruling coalition)
    • direct democracy tools (if aligned less, or if opposition is expected)
• Engage decision-makers effectively
  • If you have limited time, prepare a powerful but short framing:
    • problem → importance → evidence → proposal

B) Choose the competent authority and mechanism (selection algorithm)

• Step 1: Identify the competent authority
  • Determine the level: municipal, state, or federal
  • Determine the branch: executive vs legislative
• Step 2: Determine what must change
  • If it’s a legal change → go to Congress
  • If it’s municipal regulations → go to city council
  • If it’s how a social program is operated → go to the responsible executive branch agency
• Step 3: Select the delivery path based on available resources
  • If you have relationships: lobbying/legislative channels may work
  • If you don’t: rely on direct democracy mechanisms available in your state

C) Drafting/structuring a legislative initiative (as referenced)

Include:

• Justification of reasons
  • Why it matters
  • What you want to change
  • What’s been done elsewhere
• Articles
  • Which articles you want to change
• Comparative “should say” table
  • Column with current text
  • Column with proposed new text
• Transitional provisions
  • Explain how quickly it becomes enforceable and avoids years of non-enforcement

D) Preparing for signature collection (practical campaign mechanics)

• Plan the pitch to supporters
  • Adjust based on awareness:
    • if the campaign is already known (e.g., whales/gas), fewer explanations are needed
  • Explain trust requirements:
    • why voter-ID info is collected (INE legitimacy; prevent multiple voting; verify identity)
• Set time expectations
  • Shorten interactions when people want to disengage
  • Aim for brief messaging (e.g., “maximum two minutes” style)
• Build campaign conditions
  • Use more people for faster collection (brigades)
  • Choose the best channel:
    • paper-only vs paper + online
    • in-person can be more effective for trust
• Manage rejection
  • Expect refusals
  • Don’t take it personally; keep going
• Use social tactics
  • Pair signature tables with other activities to reduce “politics fatigue” (e.g., kids’ drawing activities)

E) Storytelling structure for public communication (to persuade/general audience framing)

1. Context
   • What’s happening in the community/territory.
2. Highlight the problem
   • Why it matters
   • Evidence: data, testimonies, research, experiences.
3. Present what you propose
   • Concrete solution—avoid only stating “we want to fight climate change” without specifics.

F) Handling strong opposition to initiatives

• Don’t over-invest in head-to-head debate with opposition.
• Use a power-mapping approach (actor categories):
  • Loyal constituency (supporters)
  • Allies (agree but not active)
  • Opposition (often resourceful; don’t waste time directly arguing unless you have power)
  • Indifferent majority (key target)
• Invest effort in convincing the indifferent.
• Use creativity and alliances to counter resource inequality (e.g., “David vs Goliath” framing).

---

Featured speakers / sources

Speakers (mentioned directly)

• Salma Richard (host/moderator)
• Sharon (part of the Constituyentes coordination/constituent team)
• Alex Day (Constituyentes; economist; from Tijuana)
• Luis (mentioned as part of the origin/story; also referenced earlier as an expert)
• Oscar (mentioned as a speaker in prior sessions)
• Cristóbal (named as part of the Constituyentes team; pedagogue)
• Jorge Villarreal (referenced as having shared a victory in a previous session)
• Andrés Manuel (AMLO referenced in context of extractive abuses and governance period)
• Claudia Shabound (referenced in Baja California press context)
• Manuel Nava (“devil’s advocate”)
• Ingrid (asked questions)
• Cris (asked questions)
• EA 1466 (asked questions in text/chat)
• EA/Aaron (asked questions)
• Nancy (asked questions)
• Tori (asked questions)
• Greece (asked questions)
• Sofia (asked/commented in chat)
• Aaron (asked about public policy education)
• Daisy (asked about communicating to newcomers)
• Silvia Cantú (referenced from earlier sessions; also described as a constituent)
• David Altman (political scientist referenced)
• Marshall Ganz (community organizing theory referenced)

Organizations / sources referenced

• Hackers for Our Future
• Our Future
• Practical Laboratory for Democracy
• Constituyentes / constituent assembly network
• V-Dem / Our World in Data (direct democracy access index referenced)
• ECLAC (Manual for development of public policies referenced)
• Accountability Lab
• Política Colectiva
• Regidor MX
• IME/INE (INE referenced regarding signature and voter-ID verification)
• Profepa (environmental authority referenced)
• SENER (energy authority referenced)
• SEMARNAT (environment authority referenced)
• “Onworld in Data” / V-Dem (named as Onworld in Data in subtitles)
• Oxfam and a progressive tax reform alliance (tax reform guidance referenced)
• Bar and Barut (The Two Faces of Power referenced)
• David Altman (book referenced: Citizenship, Citizenship and Contemporary Direct Democracy)
• Aguascalientes model (timeline/rules for initiative response referenced)
• Primavera Política and Política Colectiva (used as resources for mapping mechanisms)