As a political tsunami hits Serbia Milica Pekic reports on the victory for Student List and how it happened
After almost two years of continuous student and citizen protests, and more than sixteen months during which the government ignored the students’ demand to dissolve parliament and call early elections, Serbia finally went to the polls on the 25th of October. On one side stood the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS); on the other, the student movement, represented by the Student List, whose candidates were chosen by 80 student plenums from faculties across Serbia. The list features not the students themselves but professionals, university professors, workers, activists and others who earned their trust over two years of struggle. Several opposition parties endorsed the Student List, while others, including some that had once belonged to the ruling coalition, ran independently.
Opinion polls had recognised the strength of the Student List and suggested a slight advantage, but none anticipated the political tsunami that followed. Despite the ruling party’s dominance over most national media, an aggressive campaign against the students, a manipulated voter register, and an enormous advantage in financial and institutional resources used to influence the process, the student movement drove an exceptionally high turnout of 70% and, according to preliminary results, won 141 of the 250 seats in parliament. The Serbian Progressive Party won 103, while six went to national minority lists, and every other party fell below the threshold of 3% required to enter parliament. A party that had dominated Serbian politics for fourteen years was defeated, and the country’s political landscape was fundamentally reshaped.
This result was built on two years of groundwork. Students did not only organise among themselves; they helped citizens, workers and professionals organise too, through local assemblies, informal sectoral associations and partnerships with proactive unions, creating a strong, decentralised network of people reclaiming their political voice. On marches across the country, students walked hundreds of kilometres from city to city, passing through remote villages and speaking directly with people. Their care and kindness wove invisible threads of trust. Together with a sophisticated communication strategy on social media and the daily sharing of information, these encounters helped restore hope that different social relations were possible and mobilised people on a mass scale. The entire effort was sustained through mutual support and the sharing of financial, infrastructural and emotional resources by students and the citizens who joined the struggle.
The capacity of this new infrastructure became especially evident during the election campaign, when students mobilised and trained tens of thousands of volunteers to monitor the vote. Every polling station was covered by observers representing the Student List, supported by mobile teams and coordinators who helped prevent and document electoral fraud and manipulation. The mobilisation extended far beyond Serbia’s borders. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs failed to open polling stations in all the locations required by law; in London, for example, a single polling station served voters from across England, many of whom travelled from other cities and queued for hours to cast their ballots. This level of engagement reflects what distinguishes the movement from traditional party politics: people did not see themselves as mere supporters or voters, but as active participants with a stake in the process and a sense of ownership over the collective struggle. They were not simply mobilised by an organisation; they became part of its infrastructure.
At the time of writing (31st October), the Student List has not yet formally assumed power. The Republic Election Commission must first proclaim the official results, after which constituting the new parliament can take up to a month. Yet the system that ruled for fourteen years has already begun to unravel. While the outgoing authorities remain in office in a caretaker capacity, the broad network of organisations and civic initiatives built over the past two years has moved into action, demanding the resignation of public officials and working to prevent the destruction of documents and other evidence. Prosecutors have reopened cases that had been blocked for years by political interference, and those in power appear to be in a panic. The National Bank of Serbia has revoked the licence of Alta bank, owned by a businessman close to the ruling party and now heading for bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the number of whistleblowers coming forward is growing, and new scandals involving public officials are emerging daily.
A new phase now lies ahead: one of political articulation, and of redefining the relationship between informal civic, workers’ and professional initiatives and existing institutional structures. It will require rethinking on how direct-democratic practices can coexist with representative institutions. Also on how to bring more decentralised forms of governance into structures built on hierarchy. This will not be easy. But if the past two years have taught us anything, it is that democracy is built through practice and participation, by empowering people to take an active role in shaping their living and working environments. Democracy is not a state to be achieved once and for all, but an ongoing process of transformation. The first step, the electoral victory, has been achieved beyond all expectations. And the work continues.