Some Thoughts on Influence and Negotiation Across Different Political Systems

By Paul Shotton, Advocacy Academy

Not long ago I ran a workshop with a group of practitioners working across several countries with very different political environments and very different levels of transparency. Some of the systems they operate in are relatively structured. Others are far less predictable, with policymaking processes that are more opaque and where informal dynamics often play a much larger role.

Despite these differences, the questions people were grappling with were remarkably similar. How do you influence policy decisions when the rules of the game are not always clear? How do you navigate situations where the official narrative does not necessarily reflect the real drivers behind decisions? And how do you build influence over time rather than relying on individual meetings or short-term tactics?

My academic work originally focused on the study of interest group influence, analysing familiar variables such as organisational resources, proximity to decision-makers, the type of interest group involved, the structure of policymaking processes and windows of opportunity. Those factors remain important. But in the workshop we approached the question from a slightly different angle.

Inspired in part by the work of Laura Shields, we explored the structural conditions that allow influence to emerge in practice. Instead of focusing on persuasion techniques alone, the discussion centred on a simpler question: what needs to be in place for persuasion to matter at all?

Four ideas repeatedly surfaced in the discussion: relevance, credibility, timing and discipline.

The first is relevance.

Influence begins with understanding what problem a government is actually trying to solve. That sounds straightforward, but in practice it is often more complicated than it appears. The public narrative surrounding a policy issue is not always the same as the underlying driver of the decision.

Governments may frame a policy in terms of public health, regulatory reform or consumer protection. But behind those explanations there may be other pressures shaping the decision: fiscal constraints, inflation management, economic stability or political signalling.

If an organisation focuses only on the official narrative, it may miss the deeper motivations behind the policy. In those cases even well-crafted arguments can struggle to gain traction because they address the wrong problem.

During the workshop we often described effective influence as identifying the “zone of overlap” between the objectives of an organisation and the priorities of government. When that overlap exists, there is space to co-create solutions. When it does not, advocacy tends to shift toward confrontation rather than influence.

The second condition is credibility.

Credibility is the real currency of influence. It is built slowly through consistent behaviour, reliable information and a reputation for seriousness. But it can disappear quickly if there is a gap between what an organisation says publicly and what it communicates privately.

The classical ideas of ethos, logos and pathos still capture something important here. Trust, evidence and persuasive framing all shape how arguments are received. Evidence and data provide the analytical foundation of a position. Framing connects that analysis to the concerns of decision-makers. And reputation determines whether those arguments are taken seriously.

For the practitioners in the room, credibility was closely linked to discipline. Public affairs is a repeated game. Every interaction contributes to how an organisation is perceived in future debates. Maintaining consistency, even under internal or political pressure, becomes essential to preserving long-term influence.

The third condition is timing.

One of the most common misunderstandings in public affairs is the difference between access and influence. Many organisations succeed in securing meetings with policymakers. But those meetings do not necessarily translate into influence if they happen at the wrong moment in the policy process.

At one point in the workshop someone observed that policy proposals often seem to appear already fully formed. That comment triggered a long discussion in the room. In theory, influence is strongest early in the policymaking process, when governments are still exploring options and defining their priorities. In practice, many practitioners encounter proposals only once decisions are already largely shaped.

This creates a real frustration. If policies appear suddenly, how can organisations engage early enough to influence them?

One useful way to think about this challenge is to recognise that policy files rarely emerge out of nowhere. Even when a proposal appears quickly, it usually has a longer history.

Policies often evolve through cycles. An issue may return during the evaluation of existing rules, emerge from implementation challenges, or arise as governments revisit earlier debates. In other cases, broader political developments can trigger new policy initiatives: alignment with international standards, accession discussions, or the adoption of wider agendas such as environmental or governance commitments.

Understanding these cycles helps explain why some teams are able to anticipate policy developments while others are caught by surprise.

Participants in the workshop also discussed how tensions within policymaking can create unexpected openings. Governments often face competing policy options, and new solutions sometimes emerge as compromises between those competing approaches. When those moments arise, windows of opportunity can open very quickly.

In those situations preparation matters. Teams that invest in monitoring policy developments, sharing intelligence internally and building relationships across institutions are far better positioned to respond when opportunities appear.

Coalitions can also play an important role. Coordinated engagement across organisations and across different levels of the policy system can strengthen the ability to shape emerging debates.

In other words, when early access is difficult, influence depends less on reacting to formal consultations and more on continuous monitoring, intelligence gathering and preparedness.

A final insight that emerged during the workshop is that different political environments operate with different “currencies” of influence.

In some systems, technical expertise and policy evidence carry significant weight. Decision-makers may rely heavily on regulatory analysis, data and formal consultation processes.

In other contexts, different factors may shape influence. Economic reassurance, stability, long-term investment or partnership with government may matter more than detailed technical arguments.

For practitioners working across multiple markets this creates a constant challenge. Strategies that work well in one political system do not always translate easily to another. The same argument, delivered in the same way, may resonate strongly in one environment and fall flat in another.

Understanding the political context therefore becomes as important as understanding the policy issue itself.

What struck me most during the workshop was how quickly practitioners recognised these dynamics in their own experience. Even though they were operating in very different political systems, many of the challenges they faced were shared.

Across all of these environments, influence rarely comes from a single meeting or a particularly clever argument. It emerges gradually through relevance, credibility, timing and discipline.

In other words, influence is less about persuasive tactics and more about understanding the system in which you are operating. Once that system becomes clearer, the path to effective engagement becomes much easier to see.