More than a decade ago, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told an interviewer in Belgrade that Serbia was “a country where the future happens first.” The phrase spread widely on Serbian social media in the weeks before Sunday’s election, but in a way that would have seemed impossible 10 years ago. Who back then could have imagined that Serbia today might be at the forefront of global democratic change? The scenes from Belgrade on Sunday night—people dancing and crying in the streets—reinforced the feeling that the future had truly arrived. In Novi Sad, the city that sparked the student movement, a flag bearing the image of convicted war criminal Vojislav Šešelj, which had hung from a building since the 1990s, was torn down. Watching my home country from abroad, I found it hard not to share in the excitement and emotion. I became involved with the student movement behind this electoral earthquake and was an election candidate for it for about six months before moving abroad. My involvement began while I was lecturing in Belgrade at the university’s blockaded faculties in 2024 and 2025. During these extraordinary blockades, something happened that was not widely discussed in the western media: the emergence of a collective sharing of intelligence and a process of shaping opinion that would become key to Sunday’s outcome. For almost two years, students debated almost every aspect of Serbia’s economy and society—from lithium mining and resource exploitation to the economic power of local oligarchs, as well as issues such as healthcare and education. Sometimes discussions lasted six hours. All of this happened before the students developed any joint programme or formed an organisation capable of outmatching the traditional liberal parties. In a sense, knowledge came first, and organisation followed. Sunday’s election victory for what became the Student List therefore emerged from a novel political culture: a leaderless movement based on collective self-governance and political education, unseen in the Serbian political arena since the collapse of Yugoslavia. Given Serbia’s recent history, how was this remarkable democratic experiment even possible? One answer lies in the movement’s ability to rally a wide range of people who, despite different political convictions, wanted to counter the perceived corruption of Aleksandar Vučić, the authoritarian president. With the economy dependent on foreign direct investment after the destruction of Yugoslavia, the political leadership formed close ties with foreign-owned corporations. Vučić’s name was often intertwined with the activities of multinationals such as Rio Tinto, the Anglo-Australian mining giant that sought to extract the country’s lithium. In this context I received death threats following the publication of a critical scientific paper on the contested lithium issue; many of my colleagues faced similar intimidation. But the mistreatment of Serbian citizens who challenged large-scale investment projects also began to shape public consciousness in Serbia. Vučić’s party was accused of standing by and even participating, while opposition parties offered only lacklustre responses. From the students’ standpoint, party leaders were seen as easy to corrupt when confronted with the financial power of international projects. And so, to change the system, you had to start by changing the political structures that enabled it. Will such a movement be able to govern? This is where things get tricky. In this sense, this was not just another election; it was a monumental struggle between the old, which was dying, and the new, which was struggling to be born—to paraphrase Antonio Gramsci. In Serbia, the new movement has arisenOut of the old: it began with faculty occupations, blockades and plenary assemblies, and has now evolved into the largest political force in the country. By winning the parliamentary election, the Student List has broken the monopoly of political parties. It has become more popular than both the right-wing government and virtually all opposition parties across the spectrum, most of which did not even win enough votes to meet the electoral threshold. Thus the “old,” in Serbia’s case at least, is confirmed as dead. And what the Serbian people chose was not another party but a list of 250 candidates, 134 of whom hold PhDs, 44% of whom are women, and 135–140 of whom are now projected to enter parliament. Behind them stood an organisation unlike anything seen in traditional, leader-based political parties. In this way, “a bunch of students,” as the Economist described them, has created something that should be studied as it goes beyond the traditional ways of doing politics. Will a leaderless movement be able to govern? This is where things get tricky. In the context of what the historian Adam Tooze calls the world’s “polycrisis,” a collective intelligence based on self-organisation may be a tempting answer. After all, the student protests in France, Italy and Belgium, along with protests in Spain and Albania, have emerged in response to interlocking crises of housing, education and environmental destruction. For these crises elsewhere in Europe, so evidently mismanaged by governments, the lessons of the Serbian experiment may become crucial. On the other hand, one should not idealise the situation. The list comprises ideologically opposed blocs, from right-wing adherents to left-wingers and liberals. Most of those elected have never before held political office, and the parliamentary system will require them to nominate a prime minister and, in future presidential elections, a presidential candidate. Will the Student List bring the same energy to the national assembly without jeopardising the very method that made it so strong? Moreover, for Vučić, losing the election does not necessarily mean losing the system. On the contrary, his concession of defeat may also have been a strategic move, allowing him to keep the party apparatus intact for a comeback. Whatever happens, one question has been put on the table: to what extent are self-organisation and decentralised decision-making a basis for government? For the time being, people are celebrating on the streets of Belgrade, Novi Sad and many other cities and towns across Serbia. But the real fight has only just begun. The world should be watching closely: it may be witnessing the start of a very different kind of politics.
Aleksandar Matković is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology in Barcelona and a fellow at the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. He works on environmental history, political economy and the history of Yugoslavia.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here are FAQs based on the article A leaderless revolution has swept Serbia The world should be watching by Aleksandar Matkovic
1 What is this leaderless revolution in Serbia
It refers to the massive antigovernment protests that erupted after a railway station canopy collapse in Novi Sad killed 16 people in November 2024 Rather than being run by a political party or single figure the movement is organized horizontally by citizens students and informal groups
2 Why is it called leaderless
Because it has no central leadership no official spokesperson and no party hierarchy Decisions are made through assemblies plenums and direct coordination among students workers farmers and other groups
3 What triggered the protests
The immediate trigger was the Novi Sad tragedy which many saw as the result of corruption and negligence in state infrastructure projects Anger over the deaths quickly grew into broader demands for accountability and systemic change
4 What are the protesters demanding
Core demands include accountability for the Novi Sad disaster an end to corruption an independent judiciary and a government that respects democratic institutions and the rule of law
5 How do the protests stay organized without leaders
Through student plenums local assemblies mutual aid networks and decentralized communication Groups coordinate through shared goals and direct democracy rather than topdown commands
6 What role do students play
Students have been a driving forceorganizing blockades marches and plenums Their networks and energy have helped sustain and spread the movement across the country
7 Why should the world pay attention
The article argues the Serbian movement offers a model of citizenled resistance that bypasses traditional party politics It shows how ordinary people can build collective power even under pressure from a strong government
8 What are the benefits of a leaderless movement
It is harder to coopt or decapitate encourages broad participation and builds civic skills It also avoids dependence on charismatic figures who can be bought off or discredited
9 What are the common problems with leaderless movements
Coordination can be slow messaging can be inconsistent and it can be difficult to negotiate with institutions that want a single counterpart Movements can also struggle to convert momentum into lasting political change
10 How has the Serbian government responded
The government has tried to dismiss
