Every social movement faces a pivotal question that determines much of its fate: what exactly are we asking for? The answer seems obvious at first. You want change, so you demand it. But the specific language, scope, and framing of demands shape everything that follows—who joins, who opposes, what victories become possible, and which doors close forever.

Demands aren't just expressions of grievance. They're strategic instruments that organize energy, create leverage, and define the battlefield. A poorly crafted demand can fragment a coalition before it gains momentum. A well-designed one can transform scattered frustration into focused power capable of moving institutions.

This strategic dimension often gets overlooked in the heat of organizing. Movements sometimes treat demands as moral statements rather than tactical tools, leading to formulations that feel righteous but prove strategically counterproductive. Understanding how demands function—beyond their symbolic value—reveals why some movements build power while others dissipate into rhetoric.

Strategic demands share certain characteristics regardless of the issue at hand. They must be specific enough to be actionable—vague calls for justice or fairness give opponents nothing concrete to negotiate and supporters nothing tangible to rally around. When you can't measure whether you've won, you probably won't.

Achievability matters, but it's more nuanced than simply asking for what seems realistic. Demands must be achievable given the power you can mobilize, not just what seems reasonable to those already in power. The civil rights movement didn't ask for what Southern politicians considered achievable—it built enough power to redefine what was possible.

Perhaps most critically, effective demands must unite rather than divide potential supporters. This doesn't mean lowest-common-denominator politics. It means identifying demands that diverse constituencies can support for their own reasons. A demand for higher minimum wages united workers across industries who might otherwise see each other as competitors.

The best demands also create what organizers call a dilemma action—they force opponents into responses that either grant the demand or expose contradictions in their position. When lunch counter sit-ins demanded service, segregationists could only comply or reveal the violence underlying their system. Both outcomes advanced the movement.

Takeaway

Effective demands function as organizing tools, not just expressions of grievance—they must be specific enough to measure victory, achievable with mobilized power, and capable of uniting diverse supporters around shared interest.

Movements perpetually debate whether to pursue winnable reforms or hold out for transformative change. This framing presents a false choice. The most effective movements pursue both simultaneously through what theorists call non-reformist reforms—incremental wins that shift power dynamics rather than merely adjusting conditions within existing structures.

Consider the difference between demanding a small minimum wage increase and demanding automatic cost-of-living adjustments plus wage boards with worker representation. Both might seem incremental, but the second builds institutional power that enables future gains. The first may need to be fought for again in five years.

The strategic question isn't radicalism versus pragmatism but rather: does this demand build power for future demands? Some apparently moderate wins dramatically expand what becomes possible. Others—even significant material gains—leave movements weaker by demobilizing supporters or legitimizing systems that need transformation.

Transformative demands also serve strategic purposes even when they can't be immediately won. They shift the Overton window, making previously radical positions seem moderate by comparison. They attract committed supporters who energize the movement's base. And they articulate a vision that gives incremental wins meaning and direction. The art lies in maintaining both horizons without losing either.

Takeaway

The real strategic question isn't whether to be radical or pragmatic but whether a demand builds power for future demands—the most effective movements pursue winnable reforms that shift underlying power dynamics.

Static demands are strategic liabilities. Conditions change, opponents adapt, and movements themselves develop new capacities and understandings. Effective movements treat demands as living instruments subject to revision based on experience and changing context.

Opponent responses often necessitate demand evolution. When authorities grant symbolic concessions, movements must decide whether to declare victory or escalate. When repression intensifies, narrowing demands might preserve coalition unity while broadening them might attract new allies outraged by overreach. Each response creates new strategic possibilities requiring fresh analysis.

Internal development also drives demand evolution. As movements grow, they incorporate new constituencies with different priorities. Early demands may reflect the concerns of initial organizers rather than broader bases. Successful movements create processes for incorporating new voices without endless internal conflict—often through distinguishing core demands from secondary priorities.

The labor movement's evolution from craft unionism to industrial organizing illustrates demand transformation. Early unions demanded protections for skilled workers. As industry changed and organizing spread, demands shifted toward industry-wide standards that united skilled and unskilled workers. This wasn't betrayal of original principles—it was strategic adaptation to changed conditions and expanded power.

Takeaway

Demands must evolve as conditions change, opponents respond, and movements develop—treating demands as fixed moral positions rather than adaptive strategic instruments leaves movements fighting yesterday's battles with outdated tools.

The demands a movement makes aren't just statements of what it wants—they're strategic choices that shape everything from coalition composition to negotiating leverage to long-term power building. Treating demands as purely moral expressions ignores their instrumental function in organizing.

This doesn't mean abandoning principle for pragmatism. It means recognizing that how we formulate demands affects our capacity to win them. Strategic demand-making is itself an ethical practice when it increases the likelihood of achieving justice.

Movements that master demand strategy don't just win more often—they build power that compounds over time. Each well-designed demand creates conditions for the next. That's how scattered grievances become sustained movements capable of transforming institutions.