The victory of Serbia’s Student List cannot be fully understood without looking back at the events that gave rise to the movement. For nearly two years, students and thousands of ordinary citizens took to the streets to protest against corruption, demand accountability and challenge what they saw as the growing authoritarianism of President Aleksandar Vučić’s government. What began as a student-led protest gradually developed into a broader movement for political and democratic change.
The turning point came in November 2024, when a concrete canopy collapsed at the railway station in Novi Sad, killing 16 people. The tragedy triggered widespread public anger and raised questions about construction standards, official oversight and government accountability. Students demanded transparency and justice, but their protests soon grew into a wider challenge to the political establishment.
As demonstrations spread across the country, students received support from sections of society, including teachers, farmers, academics and other citizens frustrated with the government. Their demands extended beyond the tragedy itself to include action against corruption, stronger democratic institutions and greater freedom of expression. The movement’s strength lay in its broad public support and its determination to remain independent of established political parties.
The Student List eventually carried this protest movement into electoral politics. In the parliamentary election held on 25 October 2026, the student-backed list reportedly won approximately 52.7 per cent of the vote, compared with 39.2 per cent for the alliance led by Vučić’s Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). Turnout was reported to have approached 70 per cent, reflecting an unusually high level of public participation.
The result marked a significant challenge to Vučić’s political dominance, which began with his rise to the premiership in 2014. More broadly, it demonstrated how sustained public mobilisation can move beyond street demonstrations and become an organised electoral force. For many supporters, the vote represented an opportunity to demand a political system in which public institutions are more accountable and corruption is addressed more effectively.
However, winning an election is only the beginning. The Student List now faces the difficult task of turning public expectations into practical reforms, strengthening the independence of state institutions, protecting media freedom and addressing entrenched networks of political influence. Its ability to govern effectively will depend on maintaining public trust while building the political support needed to implement its programme.
Serbia’s experience is a reminder that student movements can play an important role in shaping a country’s political future. But the ultimate measure of this victory will not simply be the defeat of an established ruling party. It will be whether the movement can translate its promises into lasting institutional change and a more accountable democratic system.
