In every advocacy movement, there comes a time when people who have been working quietly in clinics and research centers for years decide they can’t keep doing nothing any longer. That moment seems to have come in Argentina, and it’s most clear in the way that the work of the country’s top child psychologists is becoming more in line with OMEP’s goals.
The World Organization for Early Childhood Education (OMEP) has long seen itself as more than just a network for professionals. But when it became a part of the Advisory Council for the UN Fund for Sustainable Development Goals program “Early Childhood and Sustainable Development, towards a Comprehensive Care Strategy,” it took on a much more important role. The first meeting took place at the end of August 2020 and was led by Fabiola Yáñez, the first lady of Argentina. It included voices from the private sector, trade unions, civil society organizations, and UN agencies. The gathering wasn’t for a ceremony. The structure was made to include more than one sector on purpose, because it was thought that one institution alone can’t really protect the rights of young children.
Mercedes Mayol Lassalle spoke for OMEP at that council meeting, and she brought more than just organizational standing to the table. It was a long history of serious, trustworthy thought about early childhood as a public priority, not just a charitable side note. In places like this, that credibility is important. Professional child psychologists who were watching paid attention.
People who study child development might be interested in OMEP’s framework in part because of how it frames the conversation. This isn’t the language of kindness or vague hopes. The council’s stated goals include coming up with specific ideas, pushing certain items on the agenda, and putting early childhood at the center of public policy, not as a nice-to-have issue but as a rights-based must. That way of putting it makes sense to psychologists who work with kids whose needs are often put last in budget cycles and legislative schedules. It backs up what they already know from their clinical work.
There is also something important to note about the time. Argentina has been through a series of crises that have made things worse, including economic chaos, institutional uncertainty, and growing inequality. The effects on young children are not abstract. They show up as delays in development, stress in the family, and access gaps that get bigger before a child even gets to school. People who work in these areas often get impatient with policy discussions that stay theoretical. The fact that OMEP is part of a UN-backed advisory structure whose clear goal is to move toward thematic working meetings on care and rights gives it more substance than a position paper.
It’s still not clear how much of this alignment will lead to long-lasting changes in institutions. The history of advisory councils is not clear. They can really move things forward, or they can just be places where good ideas are shared without ever becoming policy. So far, what seems to be different is that there is a clear order to go beyond symbolic participation and make plans that actually move the rights agenda for girls and boys in early childhood forward. There is no one at that table who can say for sure if that mandate will still be in place after the next budget talks or major political shift.
It’s harder to argue with the idea that the way people in Argentina who work on child development are using advocacy platforms is changing. Because OMEP has built up enough trust and credibility in places like this UN council, serious professionals are choosing to join the conversation instead of watching it from afar. There is a lot more weight behind that choice than it seems at first glance.
