Night at the Skupština: How Academics, Medics and Observers Are Rewriting the Rules of the Game

When in November last year the canopy of the railway station collapsed, claiming lives and provoking an outcry, it became the starting point: the first commemorative actions gave rise to a steadily growing protest movement, about which your humble servant wrote (the March action “15 for 15”) — and over time this developed into student protests, blockades and other forms of civic activism.

It is crucial to remember this background: it was out of grief and distrust in the authorities’ reactions that a movement grew, which today takes shape in tents, blockades and observation missions.

When universities step beyond their walls and pitch tents before the government, it is a signal: the usual corridors of power have become too narrow for those accustomed to thinking loudly. Imagine: a philosophy professor sleeping out in the open, bringing the debate on university autonomy into the streets, while deputies at the same time discuss media laws behind closed doors. Lecture halls seem to have given way to strategic protest points, where the exam is an ultimatum.

On 10 June 2025, part of the academic community announced a “camping” protest in front of the government building, demanding the repeal of contentious regulations on university standards, an open debate on the Law on Education, and the allocation of budget places by the end of June (Nova.rs). Here, a tent is not a tourist novelty but a public lectern on asphalt: when appeals in offices are ignored, protest is carried outside.

Authorities often respond only with talk of “working groups” and promises to “study proposals.” Meanwhile, the discussion of media laws in the Skupština, coinciding with the academic camp, reveals a paradox: care for freedom of speech is proclaimed, yet new barriers for independent outlets may smother any attempt to cover the tents and blockades (Nova.rs). If official journalism is constrained, the protest will move into messengers and Telegram — but without strong media, broad publicity will be lost.

Against this backdrop, future doctors announced a “blockade” of classes at the Faculty of Medicine, demanding adequate compensation for hours missed during the pandemic and quality conditions for practice (N1). Refusing to return to a low-quality format is not a whim: medical students know that their training is directly linked to patient safety. A system ignoring these demands risks producing a generation of doctors unprepared for real-world challenges.

Simultaneously, student observers record pressure and intimidation at polling stations (“batinaši”), building alert mechanisms and legal assistance (Nova.rs). Official rhetoric states: “irregularities—yes, annulment—no,” but accumulated student data and independent observation reports show otherwise (Nova.rs). Such activity on the electoral front demonstrates the maturity of civil society: if one’s voice in the lecture hall is ignored, students demand that it not be stolen at the ballot box.

Journalists under attack, recording threats and physical assaults (74 cases of threats or pressure, of which 16 were physical attacks in the first five months of 2025) at rallies (N1 English), continue to cover these events via alternative channels. Pressure on the media only intensifies underground journalism, but without wide reach it is vital to maintain solidarity with other protest groups.

Thus emerges a unified “network of resistance”: academic tents, medical blockades, electoral monitoring and journalistic material feed one another. Signals from universities resonate among election observers; fear of unqualified care in medicine deepens the meaning of blockades; attacks on journalists spur lawyers and activists to unite in defending press freedom. These are not isolated episodes but an organic process reflecting deep distrust in institutions incapable of answering public demands.

Interjection by the interlocutor: “The network of resistance is a new university of civic practice, where lectures take place in the streets and experts learn to act together.”

University autonomy is no longer seen as an internal academic matter: it has become a symbol of respect for critical thinking and an indicator of the state of free speech, directly tied to the possibility of openly reporting on public processes.

The demand for high-quality medical education arises from the sense that an effective healthcare system is impossible without competent personnel — and if future doctors are forced to protest against substandard training, it signals a profound crisis in the safety system of citizens’ lives.

Electoral monitoring demonstrates that trust in democratic procedures is inseparable from trust in public institutions: if a student’s voice is ignored in the lecture hall, they strive to protect that voice at the ballot box.

Pressure on journalists, manifested in rising threats and physical violence, undermines society’s ability to learn the truth about events, but stimulates the search for alternative information channels and unites diverse groups in defense of free speech.

Each episode of this “network” reflects the same core distrust: institutions meant to serve citizens—universities, hospitals, media, electoral commissions—have ceased acting in the interests of those they exist to serve. When a signal arises from one point, it is transmitted across connections to the others: academics in tents monitor pressure on journalists, future doctors learn of weaknesses in the healthcare system, election observers see parallels with how their demands are ignored in classrooms. Like neurons, each protest action triggers the next, and the more this resonance grows, the less effective traditional governance becomes: formal promises, “working groups,” or superficial concessions only delay the inevitable without eliminating the root cause of protest.

The key lesson is that institutions, having lost trust, cannot be restored in isolation. University autonomy, quality medical education, electoral integrity and freedom of speech are not separate tasks but interdependent components of societal health. Ignoring one of them is like trying to cure a patient without noticing that the disease has spread throughout the body. If authorities limit themselves to declarations and “working groups” without clear timelines and control mechanisms, protests will only grow and seek alternative paths.

For the web of protests to turn into constructive dialogue, the format of communication must change: public hearings involving not only officials but also representatives of academic communities, medical faculties, independent experts, student unions, election observers and journalists are needed. 

It is important to agree on concrete stages and deadlines: from analyzing current norms to implementing changes and verifying them by civic observers. Legal guarantees of safety for participants and a mechanism for holding parties accountable for failure to comply are indispensable attributes of sincere interaction.

Transitioning from street encampments to institutional platforms does not mean abandoning activism: on the contrary, civic engagement should form the foundation of these platforms. Student tents can become laboratories of ideas: where demands were once made, expert proposals will be formulated. The medical blockade can catalyze an audit of educational programs and investments in infrastructure. Election observers will not only record violations but also take part in refining regulations based on real cases. Journalists, protected by guarantees, will cover the progress of reforms, maintaining a balance between critique and constructiveness.

If authorities are ready to perceive these signals not as temporary irritants but as indications of systemic weaknesses, a phased restoration of trust can begin: first—acknowledgment of problems, then—concrete solutions and their monitoring, and finally—support for robust dialogue mechanisms. 

International partners can act as consultants and ensure transparency, but decisions must be born in the Serbian context, with the involvement of those living the issues firsthand.

Until tents before the Skupština become venues for agreed public hearings and negotiations turn into real action, universities remain on the pavement, medical lecture halls in a vacuum of demands, polling stations under tense observation, and journalists in a perpetual state of combat readiness.

The response expected from authorities is clear: either enter a new form of cooperation with civil society, or prepare for a protracted struggle in which every tent and every blockade will only confirm the growing discontent of those accustomed to thinking loudly.