Posting the protest: Lessons from students in Serbia
- Luka Bozovic
- Jun 29
- 5 min read
Updated: Aug 27
When a government controls the public debate and media narratives to cover up systemic corruption, does a spontaneous uprising of young students stand a chance?
Luka Bozovic is an MA student of Political Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London, and a political consultant. In this post, he looks at how Serbian students challenged the ruling party over its authoritarianism by adopting a daring and innovative approach to their public communications—and what happened next.
On 1 November 2024 at 11:52, a train station canopy in the Serbian city of Novi Sad collapsed, killing 16 people. The canopy and the whole station had been reconstructed several months before the incident. This was the result of corrupt and shady deals and sparked a mass movement of peaceful protest.
In the incident’s aftermath, University students began blocking crossroads, standing in silence for 16 minutes—one for each of the victims.* The students’ activism was met with a violent response—the outcome of a decade-long erosion of democracy and rule of law, and of the ruling party’s authoritarian grip on society. Supporters and officials of the ruling party attacked students on several occasions, with no consequences. The students’ response was prompt and unexpectedly defiant.
University by university, they started organizing plenums, practicing direct democracy and horizontalism, declaring the occupation of their universities. Popular support for their demands and struggle came almost immediately. Six months later, Serbia is mired in political crisis, facing its largest ever popular uprising. It was the students’ actions and communication tactics that made this happen. But how?
Clear communication channels
Each occupied faculty and student body established social media pages immediately, clearly identifying them as the only official channel of communication.
Instead of issuing press releases, the students post on social media. Any media wishing to report their positions were directed to these channels as their primary source. This clarity reinforced trust in their communication channels, and removed any doubt about whether or not these statements were official.
Thinking about content
The style of content was friendly both to social networks and legacy media—short clips, for example, were as well suited to being broadcast on the evening news as they were to being viewed by individuals scrolling through their feeds. They produced messages that would engage the audience, and that invited sharing and comments. What made a difference was making political content easy to consume. This drew in citizens and kept them informed.
The students found a way to comment on events and actions of the government that is simple, engaging and fun. The reach of their social media posts shows that they succeeded in this. From that point on, every conversation about current events referred to exact social media posts.
Authenticity
Almost every university plenum utilized its own resources to their full potential. Students started with a creative approach to their core messages, mostly connected to their distinctive departments and faculties. Slogans like that of students from the Faculty of Organizational Sciences “Wise to organize”, or the banner “Mechanical Engineers against Machinery” became iconic.
The students understood that there is no rulebook or formula that they should follow. They created their own authentic voice and symbols that stood out. They didn’t use stale or predictable slogans. This helped recognizability and trust.
Owning the narrative
One of the remarkable things the students did was owning the narrative at each stage of the protest. First, they reclaimed national symbols—flag and anthem—previously misused by the ruling party and nationalist allies, giving it back to the people. Then, they started owning the communication narrative, making the government respond to them, rather than allowing it to set the tone like in the past.
They started the conversation they wanted to have and refused to take part in the one imposed on them by others. This allowed them to control the debate. For progressive forces, this is an important lesson, as quite often they decide to take up mainstream narratives. The students didn’t do that, instead they mainstreamed their own narrative.
Focus on the idea not the person
While the government constantly tried to target and label individuals as leaders of the movement, trying to discredit them for their previous activities, the students rejected this. Their communication was about community and their collective demands. They didn’t allow the reporting on them to revolve around leading figures.
The horizontal approach to organizing means that there are no leaders or spokespersons. The faces of those making public statements changed constantly, to keep the discussion focused on the message rather than the person delivering it. For the first time in decades, the public debate, or private conversations at the bar, were not about leaders or personalities, but about politics.
Posting with purpose
The students understood that social media is not just a channel of communication, but a channel of mobilization. This had a positive impact on mobilization, as people felt invited to join them. Every communication had a clear call to action. If they needed donations in funds or food, they made specific requests. They understood that most of the time, what you ask for is what you get.
If they post, they post with purpose, and even when the purpose is to inform audiences about something, it is part of a wider strategy of mobilizing support to make a change. Whether the calls are about joining protests, organizing a citizens’ assembly, or anything else, mobilization is always in mind.
Humor
Students displayed wit and creativity, using humor to grow their audience and the resistance to authoritarianism. Humor was used in their communication as an effective method to send the message and make sure it sticks. Their mocking of government officials, like calling the president an “incompetent institution” became everyday jokes, but always with an underlying purpose.
A digital strategy born in the streets
The main lesson we can learn from students in Serbia is that building a movement in an authoritarian context is possible, and digital communication plays a significant role in it. However, if what we do in digital surroundings is not related to what we do in the streets, it will hardly make a change. Organizing is all about the people, online and offline. Winning people’s hearts and minds is not just about nice posts, but about the transformation we want. Through their pragmatic, action-focused communication, the students mobilized a great number of citizens not just to engage in the digital world, but also in real life. They were participating, they were donating to students, they were organizing. In the context where the scale of state capture and dominance of the ruling party left many feeling powerless, this achievement went beyond these acts themselves. It made people believe again that change is possible and that everyone can be a part of it.
Six months since the protest started in Serbia, a lot of things have changed, and the way we understand and talk about politics is far from what we had before. Students utilized social media as part of their strategy to create that change. They successfully used it as a channel for establishing trust and growing the movement. The final outcome of their approach is yet to be seen, but we are moving in a positive direction.
*In first place, the standing in silence lasted for 15 minutes, but as one of the injured victims deceased one minute was added.
Comments