“Don’t talk about us, without us”:

Co-creating policies that transform

More than a decade ago, on a visit to New York City, I took the United Nations visitor’s tour, which I found to be well done and surprisingly moving. To learn of the good humanitarian work the UN does around the world, and the many noble goals the UN aspires to—and seeks to inspire member nations to align with—seemed to make me a prouder member of our human race—that, in spite of our obvious shortcomings as a species, at least we’ve succeeded in building international, multilateral organs that are doing some commendable things in the world. 

Fast forwarding to February 2024, these sentiments were revived as I attended my first UN event: its 62nd Commission for Social Development (“CSocD62” for short). In the proceedings I observed, various accommodations were made (including live translations) to assist people from such a wide swath of countries to participate in one conversation, in which admirable principles, ambitious goals and worthwhile policies were encouraged from seemingly every microphone. Observing all of this renewed my sense that humanity has done something worthwhile by founding the UN and maintaining its functioning until the present day. 

Of the many admirable principles voiced during the Commission, one especially grabbed my attention: that as we discuss the policies that seek to better peoples' lives, we should also strive to meaningfully involve the intended recipients of such policies—those who might say, "don't talk about us, without us." This deceptively simple maxim, upon close examination, is quite profound in its implications.

Of course, such a statement is entirely justified given the long history of those most marginalized being left out of the process of forming policies that seek to assist them. It may be that this historical tendency reveals, at its root, a fundamental assumption about social change that we may wish to examine. The Baha’i writings state that “Social change is not a project that one group of people carries out for the benefit of another.” And yet, how easy it is for us to fall into the assumption that if the “haves” simply carry out projects to help out the “have nots”—whether that be in income, assets, education, healthcare, etc.—then the problem will be solved and society will be forever changed. Rather, our better senses indicate that such an approach on its own, however understandable it may be, often does little to change the mindset in which the problem was born. Lasting social change, it seems, will require a more profound and more inclusive undertaking. 

In the context of CSocD62— whose priority theme calls for achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal of eradicating poverty— “don’t talk about us, without us” would seem to imply offering a seat at the decision-making table to individuals who are living (or have lived) in conditions of poverty and/or extreme poverty. Unfortunately, some efforts to assist such individuals have historically suffered from a kind of paternalism, however subtle, that believes the so-called “experts” know better (than these individuals) what economic instruments or policies will best help them. Unsurprisingly, this attitude can be disempowering to the intended beneficiaries.

How then can leaders and decision-makers demonstrate a commitment to the well-being of these individuals, without falling into the traps of paternalism, condescension, or self-righteousness? How might policymakers instead view the intended recipients of social policy measures? What would the quality of their relationship with these individuals look like? And how can these individuals be thought of as active protagonists of policy formation rather than merely as passive observers and recipients? 

One effective antidote to the tendency to “talk about us, without us” may be the concept of “co-creation,” which has become something of a buzz word in recent years—and for good reason. It's a beautiful concept that anyone can get behind, and it brings multiple benefits. Co-creation matters not only because it ensures that policies effectively support their intended beneficiaries, but also because it creates spaces and communities in which all people see themselves as capable of contributing to the generation and application of the accumulating knowledge of the human race. This vision of co-creation challenges the commonly held assumption that an expert from outside of a population is always needed to help that population advance—when in reality it often happens instead that such an expert ends up imposing (whether intentionally or not) their professional aspirations on the population in question. In contrast, true co-creation and thought partnership involves diverse actors uniting in a collective process of learning that focuses on the dynamics of an ongoing endeavor that conduces to lasting progress for said population. 

Of course, as powerful as co-creation is, it’s not always simple or easy to implement in practice: meaningfully engaging the people that policymakers seek to represent in their decisions is often easier said than done. In the movement to eradicate poverty, people experiencing poverty—whose voices are most needed at the table—often lack the time and resources to attend policymaking spaces. This reality then requires that institutions and individuals with means dedicate the necessary support to enable these voices to participate. While ensuring the physical presence of these collaborators is an important first step, tokenism and performative displays must be avoided—and replaced by opportunities for real, substantive consultation and contribution. 

This principle of co-creation is one of many examples in which “what” we need is relatively easy to articulate as a vision, while the “how” of implementing said vision is more complex. In this connection, another idea that grabbed my attention at CSocD62 was attributed to former Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations, Juan Somavía: that the multilateral community tends to be very ambitious about “what” we should do, and less ambitious in detailing “how” we should do it—but ideally the “what” and the “how” would work in concert with each other. And as another speaker at CSocD62 astutely observed, the large gap between the “what” and the “how” usually persists until people fully appreciate the “why.” 

In the case of co-creation, the “what” is not difficult to articulate: we should meaningfully include the voices of those most marginalized, especially in the formation of policies that directly affect them. But the question of “how” policymakers should do this is, in practice, more complex to implement. And yet, the fact that it may not be simple or easy, does not mean such co-creation should be set aside. 

The fact that the “how” may present some challenges underscores precisely “why” we need these extra voices at the table: we need more heads and hearts, hailing from diverse outlooks on life, to come together to jointly discover solutions to these complex, multifaceted problems. 

As these lines of inquiry are pursued further, in the ongoing effort to advance the commendable work of the UN, we may wish to include in the many questions facing the multilateral community, the following considerations—any of which could also be taken up as an object of learning for a future event: 

• How can we better implement the ambitious visions and goals we articulate? In other words, how can we get better at detailing the “how”? 

• In what ways can co-creation with policy-impacted individuals help us in this regard? 

• How can such co-creation help improve policy? 

• And how, in practical terms, can this co-creation be best achieved? 

Jeremy Lambshead is an external collaborator who recently attended the Commission for Social Development with interns and staff at the Baha’i International Community United Nations Office