SYSTEMIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE ADVOCACY EFFORTS OF CSOs IN MEXICO DIALOGUE AND OPEN MECHANISMS FOR ADVOCACY
Many of the actors involved in the advocacy efforts for the passage of the Law agree that such passage was only possible because of the involvement of institutions that facilitated the dialogue between different sectors of civil society with government authorities. For instance, Iberoamericana University (IBERO), provided an impartial physical common space for all parties to engage in dialogue to reach agreements on what was expected of this Law. Similarly, the Centro Mexicano para la Filantropía (CEMEFI), an umbrella organization with links to broad networks of CSOs across the country and with the private sector, was instrumental in coordinating the effort of dialogue with government authorities, CEMEFI was also key in helping to incorporate the viewpoints of many organizations and validating the process as a whole. Convergencia de Organismos Civiles A.C was also key articulating and representing several CSOs in Mexico (Consuelo Castro and María Magdalena Hernández, KII 2017). The mechanisms for dialogue had to incorporate not only civil society and government, but also the private sector. The dialogue between all sectors was essential to establish the differences between them. According to experts, the distinction between organized civil society and the private sector was hard to convey to government authorities, because there had been no real understanding of this difference prior to this effort. In this sense, the law became an educational process for government authorities (Sergio García, KII 2017). However, it also made clear for CSO what they needed and wanted to achieve a more formal recognition of their rights and an outline of a legal framework which could ultimately contribute to strengthen Mexican democracy (KII, Carlos Zarco, 2017).
LESSONS FOR ADVOCACY 1) Advocacy for public policy modification and for legislative change can be eased through open dialogue mechanisms enabled by impartial organizations and institutions. These neutral spaces can help to build a safe environment wherein different views are discussed without antagonizing the other side; 2) Legitimacy of the parties involved is key: organizations, institutions, and individuals that participate in the dialogue must be able to represent several groups and CSOs, assuring the inclusion of different perspectives. Even if those directly involved in the negotiations have more technical knowledge or a deeper understanding of the issues, consultations with a broader base is necessary to ensure that those who are going to be directly affected by the changes in policy are taken into account; 3) CSOs are part of a system of interrelated actors. Therefore, an effective advocacy strategy requires (a) identifying stakeholders on the policy or legislative reform, (b) ascertaining their beliefs and interests, and (c) how to neutralize or leverage those facts, depending on whether they can help or thwart the CSOs agenda. In many cases, this will entail informing and persuading other actors of the need of their involvement; in this case, an agenda to promote the third sector ought to include not only the government, but also the private sector. POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT AND COLLECTIVE PERSEVERANCE
One the most important aspects of this advocacy process was that civil society was focused on obtaining a legal framework that would promote the rights of the sector, rather than investing time and effort advancing a particular political agenda. According to experts, CSOs were politically independent and as such, were able to 91