(On May, 7th, researchers and PhD students gathered to discuss the recent wave of protests in Serbia. We publish Aida Kapetanovic contribution, The event was organized to discuss the student-led mobilization in Serbia, that for six months by now has involved thousands of citizens from different sectors of the society, leading to the resignation of the mayor of Novi Sad and of the Prime Minister of the country).

It all started with the collapse of the rooftop of the railway station in Novi Sad in November 2024, that killed 15 people immediately, and claiming another victim in the following months. The railway station had been recently renovated, within a broader project of modernization of the railway infrastructure within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative promoted by the Chinese government, and awarded to construction companies close to the government. In the aftermath of the incident, no investigations were started, and no one was held accountable. The event symbolized the widespread corruption cemented by a decade of authoritarian rule by President Aleksandar Vučić and his party, turning tragedy into mobilization.

With slogans such as “your hands are stained with blood” and “corruption kills”, students across the country started to protest, launching daily traffic blocks characterized by 15 minutes of silence to honour the victims of Novi Sad. Authorities attempted to suppress the protests with threats and violence. Not only did they use police repression, but disguised “beaters” that attacked the protestors or attempted to run over them with their cars during the traffic blocks. It was one of these attacks, which occurred on November 22, 2024 on protesting students and professors at the Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade, that triggered the escalation of the mobilization. Gathered in their faculty, on November 25 they initiated the first blokada – the occupation of their university and the blocking of all academic activity. Over sixty universities followed suit, reaching to date the blockade of almost all 80 universities in the country. The students formulated four demands, that to date have not been fulfilled: 1) the publication of documentation regarding the reconstruction of Novi Sad Station 2) the acquittal of charges against people arrested and detained during protests 3) the criminal prosecution of people who physically assaulted students and professors, and their removal from public office 4) the increase of 20 percent for funds allocated for public universities. High school students joined the blockades as well, with widespread support of professors and parents.

Internally, students organize through direct democratic assemblies called plenums, in which participation is restricted to students, and every person counts one vote. This is a method that strongly characterizes the movement, which by practicing direct democracy has ensured widespread participation and lack of leadership, granting autonomy and durability to the movement. The students’ blockades obtained widespread support across different sectors of society. The first general strike was launched on January 24th, 2025, and was participated by workers of various sectors, from education and culture to small businesses, high-tech and agriculture. Other strikes occurred in the following months, including sectors such as the judiciary, public transport and healthcare.

Mass demonstrations occurred, starting from the first rally on December 22nd, 2024 in the Slavija square in Belgrade, that gathered over 100.000 participants. Demonstrations and blockades of the main roads and bridges spread across the country, reaching not only big urban centres but also smaller towns, and fostering growing participation. The biggest demonstration in Serbian modern history occurred on the 15th of March 2025, when over a million people from across the country gathered in Belgrade. The days preceding the rally were characterized by an atmosphere of tension fuelled by the government and pro-regime media. While President Vučić proclaimed to expect clashes and unrest, a counter-demonstration was organized by alleged students that camped in front of the Pioneers Park in Belgrade. This initiative was yet another attempt by the government to give an image of a society split between regime opponents and supporters, and to provoke tensions and violence. While the mass demonstration occurred peacefully, the fifteen minutes of silence were interrupted by a sudden loud sound that caused general panic. In the days that followed, it was witnessed that the sound was provoked by a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), a weapon that is banned for civilian use as it causes severe physical symptoms. Despite the numerous witnesses, the authorities denied its use and no investigation was initiated to verify the events.

In such a repressive and authoritarian milieu, how were students able to foster such widespread societal participation? One of the key features of this movement is their capability to find innovative and creative practices to meet the challenges of mobilization. As early as February, students began embarking on hundreds of kilometres-long marches, marathons or bicycle rides to reach one city after the other. This practice enabled to spread awareness and foster participation, despite attempts by the government to block transportation. Through these marches, the students have also built solidarity, reaching the most remote and marginalized areas of the country, meeting large segments of rural population, and reconnecting the social fabric that is being constantly fragmented by government-led policies and narratives. Step by step they crossed Serbia from North to South, from East to West, gathering in the streets of Novi Sad, Belgrade, Kragujevac, Niš, Novi Pazar, Kraljevo. A noteworthy aspect has been the participation in the mobilisations of students from Novi Pazar, a town with a predominantly Muslim population. War-related violence and post-war nationalist politics have largely excluded this population from Serbian political participation. Conversely, the student-led mobilisation has significantly challenged post-war nationalist narratives, and resignifyied Serbian national symbols, such as the national flag, as markers of unity and solidarity in diversity, rather than nationalist hatred. This is something that, as Filip Balunović has pointed out, thirty years of progressive, anti-nationalist initiatives have failed to achieve.

The peak moment exemplifying this achievement occurred during the blockade of public broadcaster RTS in Belgrade. During the Easter holidays, students from Novi Pazar joined the blockade to enable their Christian peers to go home for the celebrations. The blockade was also joined by a group of Serbian war veterans. One of them, a veteran and war invalid who participated with the Serbian army in the siege of Sarajevo, gave a powerful speech, in which he admitted that in the 90s his generation was misled by the lies and hatred of regime media like RTS, while the current generation is exposing and rejecting those lies. He addressed the parents of the students from Novi Pazar, reassuring them that the veterans will protect their children, because the narrative that has divided “our children” from “your children” has ended.

It is important to note that the mobilizations have been lacking support from EU institutions. Therefore, students organized a ride to Strasbourg and a marathon to Brussels, the latter to reach the European Parliament during a session where the report on Serbia’s progress was discussed and to give firsthand information about the situation in the country. Unfortunately, the EU’s ambiguous position should not be surprising, given the large support President Vučić enjoys both from individual heads of States and the EU, which some scholars have defined as favouring “stabilitocracy”, meaning providing external support to an authoritarian government in order to grant regional stability at the expense of democracy and human rights in domestic politics.

This ambiguous position is not new. It has characterised the EU’s green policies as well, in promoting and funding extractivist projects such as hydropower development or lithium mining in the region, under the guise of the EU Green Agenda and the Critical Raw Materials Act. These projects have spurred grassroots environmental mobilizations from peripheral rural communities, that have contributed to set the ground to the widespread societal support to the current student-led mobilizations. As the students’ demands remain unfulfilled and a political stalemate risks to demobilize the movement, the students have made an additional claim asking for snap elections. Although Vučić seems irremovable in keeping his grip on power, and the challenges that such a heterogeneous and ideologically “basic” movement still has to face, it is important to acknowledge that in the past six months students in Serbia have already enabled deep societal changes, building solidarity, grassroots participation, direct democracy, and most of all hope for a better future.