How flaws make a great campaigner

It's a tale of two UN ambassadors: Emma Watson (the heroine) and Angelina Jolie (the heroin). But, writes Claire Cohen, Jolie's past actually makes her better suited to humanitarian work. To truly fight for a cause you need to battle personal demons.

When Emma Watson was announced as a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador for Women, she seemed the perfect choice. Academic: check. Good girl image: check. International profile: check. Beatific smile: check.

Indeed, so enamoured was the world that the UN Women website crumpled under the weight of interest in the 24-year-old Harry Potter star. Confundo!

Well, good for her. Any attempt by a celebrity to use their fame for good is to be applauded. But, I can't help but wonder whether Watson's squeaky clean image is a hindrance. Other than overcoming the odd Death Eater, has she got the grit required to make a difference?

In fact, history shows that to really, successfully fight for a cause you need to have fought for a personal one, too.

Take Angelina Jolie. Footage recently emerged of the film star allegedly high on heroin during the 1990s (although, the 16-minute video actually showed little more than a young woman pacing up and down, on the phone). It was met with widespread surprise - mainly that anyone was surprised at all.

Jolie is reportedly taking legal action, citing a "gross violation of privacy".

She need not do so. Not because she's "untouchable", as some have suggested. Rather that her flaws are integral to her humanitarian efforts.

The past is a foreign land

Jolie has publicly confronted her past behavior. We already know about the self-harm, the drug use, the sex, the depression and estrangement from her father. She doesn't need to protect her image. Her past isn't pristine. But this is what makes her such a force for good.

What, if not her turbulent youth, is her driving force? What else but a motivation, forged in the fires of her personal struggle, could persuade one of the world's most photographed women to devote much of the past decade to fighting child abuse, sexual violence in conflict zones and the mistreatment of women?

This is not the cynical ploy of a publicity hungry celebrity. She isn't playing a part. Jolie's causes have the courage of her own conviction.

In 2002, the actress was asked what she hoped to accomplish by working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. She replied: "Awareness of the plight of these people. I think they should be commended for what they have survived, not looked down upon."

Therein is the spirit of the true campaigner and political maverick: someone who has survived. Someone whose own personal issues set them apart from the crowd and conventional thinking. Someone for who sticking their neck out isn't so much a risk but a reflex.

Sometimes it takes an "outsider" to see an injustice and act to put it right. Even if, at first, it might not be acknowledged, or accepted (think votes for women, or racial equality). They lack fear; in fact they often feel validated by taking a risk, inviting conflict and ridicule. It's that drive that sets them apart. Their indignation isn't intellectual; they just want to get even for their past.

And if they are motivated to help others as much by vanquishing their own demons as by the justness of their cause, does it matter? Getting the job done - as Jolie seems determined to do - is all that counts.

Don't stand in their way

There are other examples. Think Pamela Anderson (abused as a child and raped) who has campaigned for animal and environmental rights for more than a decade and recently founded her own charity. Take Bob Geldof, who has battled against a lifetime of family tragedy to actively tackle poverty in Africa. Try Drew Barrymore (a well-documented struggle with drugs and alcohol) who has long championed human rights in Africa and has a strong presence as am ambassador for the World Food Programme.

With what they've been through, would you really want to stand in their way? (That's if you could get past their bodyguards, of course).

Today, more than ever, it seems to be women who use their past to do something positive. According to the website Change.org, women are more likely to achieve success when it comes to campaigning. Why?

"There are three reasons why women are so effective," explained Jennifer Dulski, Change.org's president and chief operating officer, during a Telegraph Wonder Women event.

"First of all, they're really good storytellers, they're a little bit more willing to share their own personal story. Two, they're really good mobilizers. They have good networks that are willing to help them. And they're just persistent."

For Emma Watson, it may be that this personal motivation and persistence is yet to come. On her appointment to the UN, she admitted to having "so much to learn".

"But as I progress," she continued, "I hope to bring more of my individual knowledge, experience and awareness to this role."

A bit of magic and maybe a pinch of rancor wouldn't hurt, either.

UNHCR Special Envoy Angelina Jolie meets Syrian refugees in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon. Jason Tanner / Reuters

Left: British actress Emma Watson poses for pictures on the red carpet as she arrives for the UK premiere of her latest film Noah in London. Ben Stansall / AFP Right: Actress Pamela Anderson attends a news conference in West Hollywood, California in March 2012. Mario Anzuoni / Reuters

(China Daily 07/26/2014 page24)