As Serbian student movement ends ruling party’s 12-year reign, here are the challenges they face

The Student List is an electoral coalition created by Serbia’s student-led protest movement. Its importance lies in showing that a movement without a single leader can still organise candidates, present a national alternative and compete for government. The candidates came from across Serbian society and largely lacked political experience.

The movement began after the 2024 collapse of a roof at Novi Sad train station killed 16 people. Students protested alleged corruption in procurement and lowered building standards. They also opposed what they described as intimidation, government-funded gangs and propaganda. Over time, their protests developed a shared goal: replacing Vučić’s government through elections.

The students deliberately built a leaderless movement and avoided developing a victim identity. They organised candidates while stressing democracy, pluralism and justice. Their success shows how shared anger can become an electoral structure when participants sustain solidarity, create a common purpose and accept collective rather than personal leadership.

Winning 141 of 250 seats gives the Student List a parliamentary majority. This is the most important measure of its victory because it moves the movement from opposition into governing power. It can now seek to form a government, pass legislation and set national priorities without relying on the ousted Serbian Progressive Party for every vote.

The result is especially striking because the candidates were political newcomers, and the movement began as street protests rather than a conventional party. The Serbian Progressive Party won 104 seats, while the Student List’s total was enough to end Vučić’s 12-year rule. The victory followed protests rooted in anger over corruption and the Novi Sad station disaster.

The majority creates opportunity, but not an automatic solution. The new government must turn democratic commitments into functioning institutions, reforms and accountability. It must also manage fear among regime supporters and avoid allowing a bitter contest to produce revenge, unrest or violence.

Aleksandar Vučić is presented as the leader whose 12-year rule ended after the Student List’s election victory. The article identifies his political vehicle as the Serbian Progressive Party, which won 104 seats. Vučić later conceded defeat, saying, “it is clear that we have lost these elections.”

The article does not provide a complete account of how his party stayed in power. It does describe the governing system as affected by entrenched corruption and creeping authoritarianism. Students also reported government-controlled media fabrications, threats, violence and alleged government-funded gangs during protests. These conditions can make it harder for opponents to compete fairly and easier for an incumbent regime to preserve power.

The election result shows that long-term rule was not permanent. A movement built from student protests eventually organised candidates and won a majority. Vučić’s concession created a peaceful transfer point, but the article warns that the transition could still bring fear, grief, anger and pressure for accountability.

In 2024, a roof at the newly renovated Novi Sad train station in northern Serbia collapsed and killed 16 people. The government denied allegations that state involvement contributed through corruption in procurement and lower building standards. Yet the disaster became a powerful symbol of possible official negligence and failed accountability.

Students responded with nationwide protests. Their anger was not limited to the deaths themselves. They connected the collapse to broader concerns about entrenched corruption and creeping authoritarianism under the ruling regime. The movement also reported threats, violence and harassment during demonstrations, deepening its belief that government institutions were not protecting citizens or investigating wrongdoing adequately.

The tragedy therefore became the starting point for a wider political challenge. Protesters moved from demanding answers to pursuing regime change through elections. The Student List’s victory suggests that the disaster helped unite people around demands for accountability, democratic renewal and a government committed to justice.

Protesting and governing require different skills. A movement can unite around opposition to corruption and authoritarianism, but a government must make decisions, manage institutions and deliver results. The Student List also includes candidates without political experience, so it may face a steep learning curve while taking responsibility for the country.

Its internal culture may create both strength and difficulty. Leaderless organisation helped students avoid concentrating power in one person and attracted broad participation. But governing requires coordination, clear authority and priorities. The movement must also address the station disaster, allegations of corruption, intimidation during protests and demands for justice without abandoning pluralism.

The election gives the Student List a majority, but it does not erase social division. Some teachers, students and older relatives opposed the protests or repeated government media claims. The new government will need to reassure fearful citizens, protect political competition and show that its democratic commitments produce practical reforms rather than merely replacing one side with another.

A bitter struggle for power can leave winners feeling that wrongs must be punished and losers fearing what comes next. The article says some people may pressure the new government to seek accountability from members of the ousted regime. That pressure could arise from alleged corruption, threats and violence reported during the protests.

The danger is that accountability could be confused with revenge. The article notes that some theorists of political emotions see revenge as a possible response after a hard-fought victory. For those who lose power, defeat can produce grief, anxiety and anger. Those emotions can make a peaceful transition more fragile, especially when political opponents distrust one another.

Vučić said he did not want unrest, killings or anything similar on the streets. The Student List’s commitment to democracy, pluralism and justice is presented as a safeguard. By taking responsibility for change rather than building a victim identity, it may pursue lawful accountability while reducing the risk of retaliation and further violence.

An authoritarian regime is a system in which power is concentrated and democratic checks, open competition and political freedoms are seriously weakened. Elections may still occur, but citizens and opponents may not have equal access to information, safety or political influence. That matters because democracy depends on people being able to criticise leaders and choose alternatives freely.

The article describes several mechanisms linked to Serbia’s ruling regime. Students alleged entrenched corruption, government-controlled media fabrications, threats, violence and harassment by government-funded gangs. They said propaganda portrayed protesters as paid by foreign anti-Serbian groups. Such practices can discredit opponents, frighten participants and protect officials from scrutiny. Weak opposition can then make elections less competitive.

The Student List challenged those conditions by organising nationally and committing to democracy, pluralism and justice. Its victory shows that opposition can still break through. But the article also implies that changing leaders is only the beginning. Democratic competition requires institutions that prevent intimidation, expose corruption and allow disagreement without fear.