Why Advocacy Needs Conflict

Advocacy without conflict only produces progress in PowerPoint and meetings–it’s a dead end.

4 min read

Just now

Listen

Any advocate of people-first urban development is likely to find themselves in this kind of conversation. Regarding the need for sidewalks, safety for cyclists, and better air quality, for instance, someone might argue, “We just need better advocacy. More dialogue. More meetings.” And they’ll sound reasonable and mature. They’ll seem modern.

But, in truth, that’s also the reason for the lack of change.

The problem isn’t that city officials don’t understand the situation, or what’s needed to fix it. They know that sidewalks, even those in good condition, are routinely encroached upon by motorcyclists, parked cars, and occupied by street vendors; that bike lanes are practically fake, as they can’t truly be exclusively for cyclists; and that crossing the street is incredibly risky for anyone, especially the elderly and children.

Those officials can see it all from their car windows. They see it on social media. They might even acknowledge it in meetings. What’s missing: a sense of pressure.

In a city dominated by motorized vehicles, various powerful interests benefit from the constant situation: parking operators, road contractors, gas vendors, police officers who collect “fees”, and middle-class drivers who enjoy free road space. These groups would be disadvantaged if sidewalks were cleared, parking regulations enforced, and roads closed for human movement. Therefore, they quietly resist any attempt to make changes.

In fact, the presence of organizations concerned with better, more livable cities, such as bicycle advocacy organizations, could play a role in countering these forces. But then imagine what would happen if such organizations came to city hall with a well-organized PowerPoint presentation. They showed photos. They cited examples of good practices from various countries. And they sweet-talked.

The officials responded with sweet faces too. Everyone agreed. But then nothing happened. This is often the case. Why? Because no one at the meeting faced any risk if the recommended policies were, in practice, ignored.

That’s why advocacy without conflict is a dead end. It gives the impression of progress without any real-world realization. “Progress” ends with PowerPoint presentations and handshakes after meetings.

In Jakarta, the example doesn’t have to be far from bicycle lanes. For years, the supporting organizations have been asked for them politely through advocacy.
The government then provided them, mostly in the form of lanes marked with paint. This made the headlines. But then cars park there; motorcyclists encroach on them. The police ignore them. The Transportation Agency does nothing. The lanes are practically in a state of limbo.

Get Purwanto Setiadi’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

That’s the picture of “successful advocacy” without pressure: victories become merely symbolic, crumbling when faced with real power.

Or consider street vendors. On paper, sidewalks are reserved for pedestrians. In practice, enforcement is lax. But when vendors block roads, occupy space, and disrupt local businesses, negotiations suddenly become urgent. Relocation plans, new markets, and compromises emerge. Why? Because conflict makes inaction costly.

In other words, cities don’t change because their officials are convinced. They change because they’re cornered.

The same is true of street justice. Regulating sidewalks also means confronting illegal parking. This is a measure that will inevitably raise objections from car owners. Police may also be annoyed. Local thugs will certainly resist. If no one makes a fuss, these people will quietly overturn the city’s policy.

That’s why advocacy requires conflict, just as fire needs oxygen. Conflict doesn’t always mean violence. It means blockade, obstruction, occupation, humiliation, and refusal to submit. It means making injustice visible and uncomfortable.

When cyclists slow traffic on major roads, they force motorists to pay attention. When pedestrians block sidewalks, they force police to choose. When parents block roads in school zones, they pressure the city to explain why children are less important than cars.

Discomfort is what gives advocacy power. That’s when a solution can be offered: “Things are getting worse. Here’s a way out.”

When officials are willing to listen, it’s not because the argument is better, but because the alternative is worse.

So, it is clear that without conflict, advocacy serves only as decoration. With conflict, it becomes leverage.

If we want livable cities, we must stop pretending that requests made politely, mannerly, and considerately can subdue powerful interests. History, everywhere, shows the opposite: every public right has been won because someone was willing to make life uncomfortable for those in power.

Streets will not be given back to people just because we ask for it nicely. They can only be regained if we refuse to move.

And that’s why advocacy without conflict is not only weak, but also guaranteed to fail.