RAND Europe The FMCSV director of institutional relations explained that the initial text of the Legal Framework was “conceived in simple terms [and] then it was complemented and enhanced though the contributions of civil society organisations and other institutions. It was enriched.”144 Finally, RNPI closely collaborated with local members. RNPI was capable of mobilising its members when needed and of capitalising on the different expertise each brought.145 When the legislative proposal was appealed at the Chamber of Deputies (see Section 3.1) on 22 December 2014 by 66 deputies, RNPI mobilised its member organisations that had a local presence to reach out to politicians to seek their support for the proposal. They called parliamentarians during the 2014–2015 Christmas holiday to convince them of the need to withdraw their vote to hold the proposal. It took RNPI one month of intensively reaching out to parliamentarians. Ultimately through this work, 39 deputies withdrew their signatures (the minimum number of signatures for the appeal to go through was 33).146 When the legislative year resumed after the holidays, the president of the Chamber of Deputies refused to accept the withdrawal of the appeal arguing that support had been built during the holidays. To counter this, the federal deputy that presented the legislative proposal requested that the appeal should be voted in the first session of the Chamber of Deputies. RNPI and the Parliamentary Front started talking to and mobilising the members of the Chamber and the appeal was finally rejected unanimously. These events exemplify RNPI’s ability to mobilise its constituents (see also Section 4.7) to secure support for the legislative approval.
5. Challenges that were overcome to achieve the adoption of the Legal Framework Interviewed stakeholders identified a number of barriers that almost jeopardised the adoption of the Legal Framework. These are discussed in the following sections.
5.1.
Time pressure and lack of awareness about early childhood issues were challenges to the adoption of the Legal Framework
Interviewed federal deputies identified two main obstacles for securing the approval of the Legal Framework: time pressure due to the end of the Chamber of Deputies’ legislative term and the fact that many deputies were not sensitised on the issue of early childhood, meaning that awarenessraising efforts were needed (through the ELP, the Parliamentary Front, and a number of regional and international seminars, etc.).147 These challenges seem to have permeated the whole legislative process, especially in the Chamber of Deputies but less so in the Senate.148 The lack of awareness of the importance of early childhood likely triggered the last-minute appeal in the Chamber of Deputies that almost prevented the legislative proposal being forwarded to the Senate. In addition, there were voices within the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate and even within RNPI that questioned the need of a new legislation when the ECA already existed. For example, within CONANDA there was a consensus on the objectives of the law, but some of its members questioned why a separate law for children up to the age of six would be needed alongside the ECA.149 Some CONANDA members, including some politicians, were concerned that a new legislation focusing only 18
