(today.rs)
A student protest called Them or Us was held in Novi Pazar, in support of students at the State University of Novi Pazar, the only university in Serbia that is currently under blockade and has been facing serious systemic problems for years. The protest was attended by a large number of guests from outside: opposition political actors, professors, public figures and numerous citizens who came to offer their support. This support was, in its essence, extremely important for the students, because without solidarity there is no serious social change.
The protest was peaceful, but after it ended, it sparked controversy about its size. Unlike the April protests, which were held in the midst of a student uprising and strong social momentum, the December protest in Novi Pazar was greeted by a visibly weakened and fragmented movement. There were relatively few citizens of Novi Pazar among the crowd, with the exception of activists from the SDA Sandžak, the Citizens' Assembly, the Islamic Community of Sandžak, the Bosniak National Council, and some local initiatives. The reasons for this are multiple: the lack of support from key local political actors, the withdrawal of some citizens, and an atmosphere of fear based on existential pressures. In essence, the protest was small in number. One gets the impression that the SDA Sandžak experienced the student uprising not as a spontaneous expression of dissatisfaction, but as a political opportunity that needed to be seized, as evidenced by the months-long, almost ritualistic presence of party delegates at the protests.
In such circumstances, the very fact that the protest took place, that it was peaceful and brought together people ready to show solidarity, represents its greatest value. No one can deny that students have shaken Serbia over the past year, mobilized people and shown that they have strength. Until recently, this was unthinkable, especially for the younger generation, which has long been considered disinterested and apathetic. However, the claim that all previous “past work” is irrelevant in this context seems more like a convenient simplification than a realistic assessment. There were protests, rebellions, criticism, connections, and attempts that may not have brought mass, but created some framework. But in Serbia, history, as a rule, begins anew every time, most often by ourselves, and reliably only since 2012, when, with the arrival of the SNS, the world was created, and everything before that was left without the right to be remembered. And that's why, at the end of this year, in my favorite Danas, I repeat once again: students have changed the geography of resistance and shown many, especially opposition actors, how it can be done.
I often write and engage in serious polemics, but there is less and less room for so-called “creative arguments”, to quote comrade Staša. A kind of dictatorship of one-mindedness has taken hold, which people hesitate to speak about, fearing attacks from within their own ranks. Instead of arguments, qualifications are increasingly used that indicate a complete lack of capacity for dialogue, understanding and, ultimately, confirm that our mental hygiene is not at an enviable level. It is almost unbelievable that in closed spaces one thing is said about all the actors who support the student rebellion, while in public spaces, where by the nature of work and responsibility one should speak openly, one is silent or carefully packages a different story, just so as not to give the impression of an “attack on the sublime”. As if it were an attack on a deity, mythical beings or holy, untouchable people. Not because there is nothing to say, but because one fears the wrong tone, word or moment, because it opens the door to bonfires in the corridors and on social networks. In this ritual of moral purity, people are stretched and flogged, often with the same prospects of understanding as a pig in Tehran.
The question that must be asked is: why are we afraid to criticize students and the student rebellion? How is it possible that every internal dilemma, every nuance or well-intentioned warning is automatically classified in the harnessed stable of “defeatists”, whose alleged role is to destroy morale, extinguish energy and work in favor of the regime? The answer is not in the students, but in us. In the fact that many, faced with their own political powerlessness and inability to publicly articulate their own position, have found shelter in the student struggle, and have nestled themselves nicely there, in a position of symbolic capitalization of the student struggle, which allows them political relevance without political risk. Instead of taking responsibility for their own words and actions, they hide behind the students and from that position implement Jacobin orthodoxy, imposing rigid patterns of permitted thinking and bowing to anticipated obedience, as Žarko Puhovski once said. In this dynamic, the student struggle becomes the subject of aggressive courtship and flirtation, out of the need to secure one's own position, gain a reputation, and take one's place when our people arrive.
In this process, students are used as an alibi and symbolic capital behind which others' passivity, fear or political futility are masked. Thus, they lose their subjectivity and are reduced to a tool of others' projections, while any criticism of this mechanism is declared an attack on the rebellion itself. Criticism is not seen as corrective, but as sabotage, a question as a doubt in the "thing", and a difference of opinion as betrayal. When the student rebellion exploded, there was talk of secret mastermind teams that were devising actions, of perfect organization and precise strategy. Then came that euphoric, never-to-be-repeated March 15, today often marked as a missed opportunity, then the Vidovdan whining, the ideological mix of everything and anything, because that is Serbia, and a series of smaller and larger episodes that fed the narrative, but did not produce a political breakthrough.
Thus, "our" people put on the uniforms of moral judges, prosecutors and righteous men, who conduct a kind of lustration of opinion, in experiences that, unfortunately, are our own, while at the same time they are completely unprepared to accept any criticism, even that which comes from solidarity and concern. If we are fighting a system that does not tolerate opinion, what can we expect when "our" people come? Will we, in the ecstasy of one-mindedness, confirm for ourselves that everything is fine, there is no need to question, that questions are superfluous and doubts are dangerous? Or will we finally understand that a movement that cannot tolerate criticism, even from within, is already showing signs of weakness, not strength. The worn-out thesis of "perfidy", which many people dear to us are throwing around these days, only confirms how deeply we are drawn into the trap of polarized opinion into "us" or "them". This binary pattern not only impoverishes public debate, but also suffocates any possibility of nuance, difference and rational disagreement. And that's how we got a situation where friends split up and move away, because the emotional investment in students has become huge, almost untouchable. In this intoxication of emotion, people lose their distance, become blinded and unquestioning, ready to remove from their circle without much thought anyone who dares to raise a question mark, not out of malice, but out of fear that even the slightest doubt could damage the carefully constructed, perfect image.
At the end of this year, we will face another student action, a collection of signatures for the calling of early parliamentary elections. It will be another count, another attempt to keep the rebellion alive at a time when, according to the logic of every social and political cycle, it has entered a phase of stagnation. This in itself is not a problem – on the contrary, stagnation is a natural phase of every movement. The problem arises when it is masked by constant mobilization without a clear political breakthrough.
We do not know whether there will be elections. But what is important and what cannot be postponed any longer is the clear political articulation of the student list. It is time to reveal the architects of the politics that the students represent: the people they elected, who have undergone serious selection and who are ready to take responsibility. It is time to see them and hear their story. Because while the public remains in a permanent state of mobilization without a clear political outcome, the burning issues that Serbia is facing at the moment are slipping out of focus. from the fate of NIS, through relations with Russia and the European Union, to a whole series of economic decisions. It is true that these people will go through a "warm rabbit", through the media vulture of tabloids, through attempts to discredit and fabricate scandals. But those who feed on tabloid narratives will never vote for such a list anyway. That must not be a reason for delay or hiding. Let the scandals multiply, let the pressures grow, that is precisely the price of entering the serious political arena. If students want their social capital to grow into political power, then the only honest way is to go public with names, faces, and a program. Everything else leads to perpetuating the myth, not building an alternative.
Aleksandar Vučić is a politician who understands very well how the political context works. He has all the available institutional, media, financial, and security resources behind him, and playing against such an actor is extremely difficult. However, the public increasingly has the impression that "everything is already over", that we are in the last phase of the regime's political metastasis, that it is only a matter of days or weeks before the system collapses. We have been listening to such qualifications for months, often with great certainty and a dose of self-confidence that is not based on real indicators. The problem with this narrative is not only that it is analytically shaky, but that it produces a false sense of finality. It obscures the fact that the political struggle does not end with mobilization alone, nor with the mere belief that the opponent has already been defeated. On the contrary, history teaches us that the most dangerous moments are precisely those when the opponent who still holds all the levers of power is underestimated. Therefore, insisting on constantly proclaiming "the end" is more an expression of desire than a political assessment. It lulls critical thinking, replaces strategy with euphoria, and creates room for disappointment when it turns out that the end does not come by itself.
The government changes in elections. This is not a phrase, nor an expression of political realism without emotion, but an elementary fact of any serious struggle for change. Everything before the elections, protests, blockades, rebellions, pressures, mobilization, is important, necessary and legitimate, but only as a means, not as an end. Regimes do not fall because they are unpopular, but because they are defeated in elections. Therefore, the key question is how the strength that the students have produced is translated into electoral victory. Not into eternal mobilization, not into waiting for the “right moment”, but into a clear political offer, into a list, names and a program that citizens will be able to round off. Everything else leaves room for the regime to survive, adapt and exhaust its opponents.
The author is the executive director of the Academic Initiative "Forum 10"
Bonus video:
