After defeating Aleksandar Vučić’s political establishment, Serbia’s student-led movement faces a new challenge: choosing a government. Its insistence on collective decision-making is raising questions about whether the methods that powered the protests can survive the demands of governing.
BELGRADE, Nov. 10 (BalkanView) – Serbia’s victorious Student List is struggling with one of its first major political challenges after winning the October 25 parliamentary election: deciding who will lead the country’s new institutions while preserving the grassroots democratic principles that brought the movement to power.
The student-backed movement continues to rely on plenums — assemblies in which participants debate and vote on decisions — to select candidates for senior parliamentary and government positions, according to statements by its representatives reported by Serbian news outlet Nova.rs.
Although the movement has secured an electoral victory, the names of the future prime minister, cabinet ministers and parliamentary speaker have yet to be publicly confirmed.
The process has raised a fundamental question about Serbia’s political transition: Can a decentralised protest movement transform itself into an effective governing structure without abandoning the principles that made it successful?
From street protests to state institutions
The Student List’s victory on October 25 marked a major political turning point in Serbia, ending more than a decade of political dominance by Vučić and his allies.
But forming a government requires decisions that are fundamentally different from organising demonstrations.
During the protests, students developed a system of direct democratic participation in which major decisions were taken through plenums at universities across Serbia.
Every participating student could express an opinion, propose an initiative and vote on decisions.
The system helped maintain collective ownership of the movement and limited the concentration of authority in individual leaders.
Now, however, the same approach is being used to discuss appointments to some of the country’s most powerful positions.
Expert warns that governing requires faster decisions
Nikola Burazer, editor of the political affairs website Savremena politika, said the movement’s complex organisational structure made the selection of senior officials particularly challenging.
“I think this stems from the very nature of the student movement and the need to preserve the form of democracy that shaped it from the beginning,” Burazer told Nova.rs.
However, he warned that the pace of political developments required faster decisions.
The process of selecting government officials would have to move more quickly than the lengthy negotiations that produced the Student List itself, he said.
Burazer identified an even greater challenge ahead: defining the relationship between the student movement, the future government and elected members of parliament.
Mechanisms would have to be established to manage that relationship because decision-making methods used during protests might not be practical when running the state, he said.
Who will become Serbia’s parliamentary speaker?
Several Student List candidates have confirmed that negotiations over senior appointments remain closely connected to decisions taken by student bodies.
Mirjana Nikolić, rector of the University of Arts in Belgrade and an incoming Student List lawmaker, told the FoNet news agency that student representatives were coordinating proposals across university centres.
She said the individuals nominated for senior positions would also have to consent to accepting those responsibilities.
Nikolić indicated that Student List representatives would respect the decisions of student bodies.
Another candidate, Aleksandar Baucal, said discussions over the next parliamentary speaker were nearing completion.
Dejan Šoškić, a former central bank governor and Student List candidate, subsequently said the movement had already agreed on a candidate.
“The students have agreed on who will serve as speaker of parliament, and the student movement will announce the name,” Šoškić said.
He also acknowledged that elected lawmakers would exercise their mandates independently under the law.
“We will enter a normal political process,” he said.
His remarks suggest that the movement recognises the distinction between collective decisions taken by student assemblies and the constitutional responsibilities of elected representatives.
The dilemma of direct democracy
Plenums became the organisational foundation of Serbia’s student protests.
Under the model, students participate directly in discussions and decisions, with proposals generally approved by a simple majority.
Meetings are moderated by rotating teams responsible for facilitating debate, assisting proceedings and keeping records.
Between plenums, working groups handle practical tasks, including media relations, communications, social media and security.
These groups remain accountable to the assemblies that appoint them.
The system was designed to prevent individual leaders from dominating the movement and to ensure broad participation.
But the transition to government creates new institutional realities.
Ministers must make decisions within legal deadlines, respond to crises and remain accountable to parliament and the public.
A decentralised movement can consult extensively before adopting a political position. A government, by contrast, must also be able to act quickly and establish clear responsibility for its decisions.
The challenge is therefore not necessarily whether plenums should disappear, but how their participatory role can coexist with the formal powers of government institutions.
Can Serbia avoid replacing one concentration of power with another?
The Student List’s victory has generated expectations of democratic renewal following years of criticism over institutional independence, media freedom and the concentration of political power.
Its internal decision-making system represents an attempt to establish a different political culture.
Yet political analysts warn that democratic legitimacy requires more than broad participation in internal discussions.
The new authorities will need transparent procedures for appointing officials, clearly defined responsibilities and mechanisms through which elected representatives can be held accountable.
The movement must also determine whether student assemblies will continue to influence government decisions after the cabinet takes office — and, if so, how that influence will be exercised without undermining constitutional institutions.
An arrangement that preserves consultation while allowing elected officials to exercise their legal responsibilities could help the movement maintain its identity.
Failure to establish clear rules, however, could produce delays, competing centres of authority and uncertainty over who is ultimately responsible for government decisions.
Serbia’s transition enters a decisive phase
The immediate test is the selection of a parliamentary speaker and the formation of a government.
But the longer-term challenge will be transforming a movement built around collective resistance into a political organisation capable of governing a complex state.
The Student List’s decentralised structure helped it mobilise supporters and challenge an entrenched political establishment.
Whether that same structure can support effective government remains uncertain.
Serbia’s students have demonstrated that their model can win an election. Their next challenge is proving that it can help govern a country.