Serbia’s student protest movement is marked by the absence of traditional leadership and a deliberately slow, deliberative decision-making process. At the heart of the movement lies a core principle: direct democracy, enacted through open plenary sessions held on university campuses.
The movement gained national prominence after a tragic event in November, when the roof of a newly renovated railway station in Novi Sad collapsed, killing 16 people. In the wake of mourning, widespread public outrage emerged, particularly among students, who attributed the disaster to entrenched corruption.
In response, students mobilised into a cohesive national protest movement. Its central pillar became the plenum — closed-door assemblies in which students debate and vote on proposed actions, ranging from moments of silence to street demonstrations and calls for strikes. Every student has the right to participate and vote, fostering an inclusive and horizontal structure.
“This model of direct democracy helps us stay united and continue fighting for a more just system,” said Maja, a 23-year-old science student at the University of Novi Sad. “We have one fundamental value: to remain leaderless.”
The first impromptu plenums, organised in December, overflowed with participants across four packed amphitheatres. The early days were marked by organisational chaos and a lack of procedural clarity. To combat disruptions, students implemented a colour-coded system to identify and exclude repeat rule-breakers, while assigning specialised tasks, such as donation management and slogan creation, to working groups in separate rooms.
Six months later, the once-uncertain structure has evolved into a disciplined and methodical process.
A Unique Approach in Serbia’s Protest History
While mass protests are not new in Serbia, with large-scale demonstrations occurring frequently since the 1990s, this movement distinguishes itself through its use of plenums. Vujo Ilic, a political researcher at the University of Belgrade, argues that this method introduces a qualitatively new dimension to Serbian protest culture.
“The intensity and scale of this protest is unlike anything we’ve seen in the past three decades,” Ilic said. “What makes it different is the plenary system — direct democracy — which has never previously been combined with mass mobilisation.”
Rather than associating the model with Serbia’s communist legacy, Ilic parallels Western progressive movements such as Occupy Wall Street.
In a country that ranks 105th out of 180 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, students remain deeply sceptical of political parties and institutional mechanisms. As a result, they have drafted their own set of rules and govern themselves accordingly.
Plenary sessions begin with a vote on the day’s agenda. Speeches are carefully timed and managed by rotating moderators. Each faculty employs specific codes to guide discussion, correct inaccuracies, and ensure clarity. All proceedings are transcribed and shared online, reinforcing transparency.
“This is a discipline we aim to uphold,” Maja said. “It’s not easy to synthesise all arguments, but it’s part of our learning process.”
The Challenges and Legacy of a New Democratic Culture
Plenums can be tense and exhausting, often stretching for hours. “It’s certainly the slowest method,” said Andjela, a student at Belgrade’s Business and Applied Arts Academy. Yet students remain committed to this format, trusting it as the only legitimate method for inclusive decision-making.
Following the fall of the government in February, the students took three months to formally demand new parliamentary elections—a timeline that reflects their deliberative pace.
“The process is slow, but that’s the one we trust,” Andjela affirmed. “It’s the only way to include everyone and reach meaningful decisions.”
This decentralised model also protects students from being easily targeted by President Aleksandar Vučić and pro-government media. “They can’t target us all,” Andjela noted, “because we are thousands.”
The students’ deliberate refusal to engage with party politics has garnered public sympathy, even as Vučić accuses them of being manipulated by foreign actors. “We are done with your demands,” he declared recently at a rally, directing his comments at the protest movement.
Young people, who comprise over 18% of Serbia’s 6.6 million citizens, are now attempting to expand their methods to rural regions and smaller communities. Whether this model of participatory governance can be scaled beyond universities remains uncertain.
Yet, as Ilic concluded, regardless of the movement’s future direction, it will leave behind a lasting legacy. The experience has been transformative — not only for the students involved but also for Serbian society as a whole.
