May Day protest in Belgrade; Photo: Mašina

As many had wished for, and some eagerly anticipated, [ after several months of strikes and protests] Serbia’s students have presented a demand for early parliamentary elections. Even before this demand was made, it was clear that “the need to publicly voice matters of interest to the whole society” was “greater than the need to protect the false unity of students in the blockade”, as Stevan Filipović wrote.

However, this also increases the responsibility of those who, like Filipović, have taken it upon themselves to defend the unity of a movement to which they do not belong but from which they expect much. What this professor from the Faculty of Dramatic Arts has been saying and writing in his series of public appearances seems to be counterproductive to defending unity.

It is true that there hasn’t been much public criticism of the students’ actions in recent months, but we also haven’t seen enough criticism of opposition parties, trade unions, or the civil society sector. We were probably, rightly so, amazed by the social movement and rebellion that developed and the changes in society it produced. The stakes have risen, and time seems to be running out, making the need to consider further steps clearer. And indeed, it shouldn’t just be students doing this thinking. One could say that the struggle is moving more slowly than we would like precisely because students are listening to and reacting to criticisms they receive, which they try to address in their discussions and in formulating and harmonising positions.

Perhaps the students didn’t need to expressly distance themselves from the arrested activists. Perhaps they didn’t need to remain silent for so long after the arrest of these people, despite the fact that comrades, regardless of some political differences, were in prison. If more effort had been directed towards freeing these people, the student movement, together with citizens, could have shown that they will not tolerate repression and will not give up on any individual. Had this been done, we might not have seen the recent arrogant behaviour of the authorities in front of the Novi Sad Faculty of Physical Education [bullying striking students to end their protests, and inviting police onto campus]. We might not have seen new incidents of cars driving into groups of people paying respects to victims, etc. Nevertheless, recent days and weeks show that progress is being made on these fronts as well, and that students have heard the criticisms and tried to find adequate responses.

The criticisms Filipović raises in his latest text “May Day, assemblies and the Khmer Rouge”, published on Peščanik [a liberal online portal], are not actually [constructive] criticism. They seem more like accusations directed not at the “unified” student movement but at certain [leftist] parts of the movement which he calls “extremist cells” that he identifies as existing at the Faculty of Philosophy, Faculty of Philology, and Faculty of Organisational Sciences in Belgrade.

By singling out certain groups of students and accusing them of destroying the movement, Filipović himself is working to weaken the unity he so wants to defend. By accusing a minority of being “extremists”, he is simultaneously telling other students that they are not capable enough to resist the “incursions of the Khmer Rouge” and autonomously assess and decide what is best for them as a student movement.

It’s no secret that there are different political and ideological views among students, and it has always been so. It is also clear that in times of social conflict, these differences become more pronounced, and universities become places of serious and lengthy discussions during which not only the stance of a certain group of students is sharpened, but often that of a larger part of society, especially in a situation of broader social rebellion as we have in Serbia. Do some people influence the views of students or their plenums? Yes, of course! Students don’t live in glass bubbles; their opinions, attitudes, and demands are formed in communication with the outside world, which includes their professors, media, political organisations, various associations, and activist groups – all quite capable and ready to contribute to the struggle, including by presenting their opinions to students.

Blockade of the Faculty of Agriculture; Photo: Mašina

Nevertheless, Filipović repeatedly highlights as a problem within the student movement the existence of a part of the student body who, in his opinion, stand on left ideological positions and from there try to push left politics within the movement. He blames individuals and organisations from the left, who do not have nearly as strong an influence as Filipović attributes to them. Actually, anyone following political developments in Serbia may rightly wonder whether it’s possible that a Party of the Radical Left has a greater influence on the student movement and social events than, say, the Party of Freedom and Justice or the ProGlas collection of prominent intellectuals, or the professors themselves at the universities?

Defending the unity of the student movement thus becomes just a veil hiding a fear of leftist politics and ideas. This represents an obvious problem for Filipović, who sees as the only possible solution to the social crisis precisely the one solution he personally considers correct. Students, however, have shown that they are capable of maintaining their unity despite the differences among them, precisely by taking into account all the diversities.

Critics who fear the “spectre of communism” in student ranks must realise that progressive values and ideas are already in the very foundations of this great and significant movement without anyone consciously planning it. Ideas of equality and solidarity are woven into all leftist theories and policies; recognising inequality and advocating for social justice, which the student movement has led to, have awakened empathy in society and created awareness of the possibility of social change – this is inherently a leftist idea and policy, as are the principles of direct democracy.

Presenting these ideas and policies as extremist means precisely undermining the unity of the movement and abandoning those fundamental principles of the movement for which the students in the blockade have received the broadest possible social support.

Marko Miletić