Serbia is boiling with anti-government protests. The protests were initiated by Serbian university students, who are organized in an anarcho-syndicalist manner, where decisions are made at student plenums, without a central decision-making body, fixed representatives, or leaders.

What immediately triggered the protests was the collapse of the roof at Novi Sad train station, which resulted in the death of 15 people. The initial demands of the students were for an efficient, fully transparent investigation that would lead to prosecuting those responsible, regardless of their position in the political hierarchy. This was an important demand, since the chief political figure in Serbia, President Aleksandar Vučić has an arbitrary and semi-authoritarian style of rule, where many if not most positions in various political and even professional bodies are filled based on personal and party alliances and corruption. Incompetence, repression and arrogant behavior of those in power, protected by Vučić as long as they stay obedient to him, have dominated Serbia for many years. 

The protests initiated by university students have been joined by many citizens throughout the country. Universities and schools are on strike, many other workers support them, and thousands of citizens are on the streets of Serbian cities, supporting student demands.

The protests in Belgrade are the largest. In December 2024, around 100,000 people gathered at Slavia, one of the central squares in Belgrade. This has seriously shaken Aleksandar Vučić. Initially, he and his machinery of repression tried both to intimidate students and to bribe them (offering cheap student loans for instance).

Neither the regime’s thugs, nor the pretense of meeting student demands, nor the promises of favorable housing loans, nor attempts to infiltrate the protest organization, have yielded results. On the contrary, these methods have given the protests additional credibility and strength. Most students are serious, well-organized, dignified, and justice-oriented individuals.

The citizens of Serbia have reason to be proud of the students. They have demonstrated political awareness and a willingness to engage for the common good, successfully organizing protests that are either completely impossible or very difficult to imagine in most countries, including those in the Western ones (even though they are badly needed in virtually every Western country).

Following a broader tendency, the regimes in Serbia have turned politics into the worst possible thing. Instead of caring for the common good, politics has become a means for enriching the political elite and their affiliated business circles, corrupting society, colonizing the country, and humiliating most of its citizens. To be fair, the majority of citizens have legitimized this, and no one can escape their share of responsibility.

What began as student protests calling for an impartial investigation and the persecution of those responsible for the Novi Sad tragedy has turned into a huge popular movement—an expression of deeper dissatisfaction, not just with the government’s failures in this specific case, but with the entire system that has been established.

Most students participating in the organization of the protests seem aware that to maintain their credibility, these protests must remain independent of political parties. The threat to society and democracy in Serbia (as in many other countries, such as the U.S., for example) comes not only from the current regime but also from much of the opposition. Many in the opposition have, over the years and decades, demonstrated exemplary incompetence and corruption, showing interest only in personal and party gains. There is also the issue of the dominant ideological orientations shaping strategic policies. Many in the opposition appear sincere in their desire to establish a system where power is not concentrated in the hands of one person or a single oligarchic structure. That is fine if the goal is merely the replacement of the current regime. But the dominant ideas guiding most opposition parties do not go beyond the framework of a liberal-capitalist conception of society. In practice, they advocate (often unknowingly) for the decisive influence of big capital on public policies, for maintaining Serbia’s (neo)colonial status, and for reducing its citizens to cheap labor, effectively turning workers into modern-day slaves. While Vučić attempts to transform Belgrade into a cheaper version of Dubai and the rest of Serbia into a desert (without oil, but with lithium ore), the plans of the liberal opposition are limited to turning Serbia into a Balkan version of America—which is equally bad news (for anyone who knows something about American society beyond cheap propaganda).

This is why the protests initiated by university students in Serbia, joined by many freedom-oriented citizens, are so important. They represent a democratic, self-managing, anarcho-syndicalist movement, against both authoritarianism and (neo)colonialism.

This type of organizing largely prevents infiltration by both regime and opposition activists who would like to take over the protests and channel them according to their own interests. The mode of organization of these protests is unique in that it displeases, at the same time, both those on the conservative/right end of the political spectrum and mainstream liberals. Both Western government (and corporations) and the Russian are unhappy about the protests; they understand that very well that real, self-managing democracy is a threat to both of them.

Here lies the answer to why the mainstream media in the West have mostly been silent about these protests. Western powers, just like any imperial power, prefer to have local autocrats, as long as these are obedient to their imperial masters. In return, they are given a free hand to exercise their autocracy and even authoritarianism within the country. Authentic democracy is the last thing they want to see in reality.  

While Western powers, through their presence in the region and in the media, are trying to infiltrate the protests and change the course of events—keeping the focus on Vučić’s regime while moving them away from the anarcho-syndicalist organization into a more representative one (which would allow them to manipulate the leaders using all conventional and unconventional means)—some Western leaders are calling for peace and the resolution of the conflict in an institutional manner. The phrase “in a democracy, power is lost and gained through elections” is often repeated these months, both by the autocratic Vučić regime. But what happens when the system is so corrupt that institutions cease to fulfill their intended functions? What happens when democratic ideas, values, institutions, and procedures are reduced to an empty shell, serving as a fig leaf to conceal autocratic or corporatist-fascist interests? Across Serbia—and the “Western world”—we witness increased media manipulation, broken systems of election and electoral engineering, lobbying, bribery, intimidation, and blackmail, all aimed at pushing authentic democracy out of state institutions.

The protests have already demonstrated that Vučić’s regime lacks legitimacy. The larger and more persistent they become, the more the regime’s credibility will erode, both domestically and internationally, until various power centers realize that it has become highly unhygienic to continue supporting this corrupt regime.

However, what are the alternatives? The students have rightly detected that they do not want to simply hand over their credibility, energy, and successes to any opposition option. If the protests grow larger and more widespread, the anarcho-syndicalist mode of organization could be implemented in other institutions, apart from the University. That, together with bigger protests, could completely paralyze the existing institutions.

One way forward could be for Serbian citizens to decide to apply the principles of self-management on a broader scale. While the same system of direct democracy cannot govern a state due to the complexity and efficiency required, a form of direct elections for a transitional, non-partisan government could be implemented. This transitional government, chosen in streets and public squares, could have clear responsibilities and a fixed mandate, with the primary task of ensuring fair elections under rules that prevent the continuation of a corrupt, undemocratic system.

Such an undertaking would not be possible without broad societal consensus, and even then, such an experiment would be painful and fraught with great risks. Let us not forget that the problem of Serbian citizens is not just the current regime and the (state, media, business, criminal) power structures within the country; it also lies outside Serbia—in international (imperial) political and corporate structures. Turning a blind eye to this would be both foolish and dishonorable.

The only thing Western liberal elites fear more than autocracy is—democracy. With autocrats, big capital can still make deals; in functional democracies, it has no chance. That is why such an experiment would face pressures greater than those encountered by Greece’s Syriza. Challenges still lie ahead, and the greatest will come after the collapse of the existing regime. Therefore, it is necessary to mobilize the best Serbia has to offer and connect with progressive structures worldwide. Important battles are won only with a great deal of dedication, perseverance, energy, learning, and time.

---