The Brooklyn Rail

For five months now, following the collapse of a train station canopy in Belgrade, Serbs have been protesting against corruption and therefore against the government. On Saturday, March 15, more than 300,000 people took to the streets of Belgrade. This article explores the form of organization adopted by the movement: “plenums”—local, horizontal, autonomous, and self-organized assemblies. It has been translated from the French publication in lundimatin, March 21, 2025.

*

To begin with a bit of etymology, the term “plenum” comes from Latin and means “full” or “complete assembly.” It refers to a meeting in which all members of a group participate, regardless of rank. This word takes on its full meaning in the examples we give here of popular self-organization. It should be noted that the word “plenum” was commonly used in our time in so-called communist countries to refer to plenary meetings of ruling parties (thus the plenums of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR or China). These meetings were supposed to be for debate and decision-making, but they were in fact controlled by the bureaucratic hierarchy of the party. The term was probably taken up by people in the Balkans because it evokes a horizontally-structured meeting where everyone can express themselves, but no doubt also because it was familiar to inhabitants of the former Yugoslavia, where it already had the connotation of collective decision-making. The organizers of today’s Balkan plenums thus reappropriated a word historically linked to the authoritarian structures of the Communist Party to make it a symbol of the opposite pole: that of direct democracy and revolt.

 

Origin and Expansion

For the first plenums in the contemporary sense, we have to go back to 2009 and visit Croatia. At that time, in the midst of an economic crisis, and in response to the commodification of education and the gradual introduction of tuition fees to public universities—a consequence of the Bologna Process aimed at aligning the Croatian university system with European standards—students at the University of Zagreb began occupying their faculties. Demanding free education, they organized themselves into plenums open to all (the plenum of the Faculty of Philosophy was open to all citizens and not just students, unlike some other plenums that emerged in Croatia). Decisions were made by majority vote; each participant had an equal right to speak; leaders were rejected.

To the original demands were gradually added ending the privatization of universities, the abolition of hidden fees, and transparency and democratization of the university system. This wave of university occupations disturbed the Croatian government, which initially backed down on privatization and university tuition fees. However, when the student movement ran out of steam they resumed their destructive measures with renewed vigor. This movement, which remained essentially student-based, had little chance to turn the tables unless the revolt spread to other sections of society. Nonetheless, the experience of the plenums left an important legacy, influencing future social movements in the Balkans, for example by means of a manual on how to hold a general assembly called The Occupation Cookbook,¹ which crossed borders and served as a source of inspiration in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 2014 plenum uprising.

Obviously, these plenums share many features with other general assemblies, notably those during the Occupy movement of 2011. They are part of a broader dynamic of horizontal organizations that have emerged across the world for decades. This model has its roots in ancient practices of collective self-governance.

The term “plenum” also emerged in 2010 during university occupations in Austria and Germany. Given that there was no direct, formal link with the Croatian student movement, this coincidence is intriguing. However, the influence of the Croatian movement was visible in the student mobilizations in Slovenia and Serbia in 2011, which would see the birth of new plenums. The Serbo-Slovene movement, for its part, is quite similar to what happened in Croatia, with a more limited impact but a similar starting point: neoliberal reforms, particularly in education, which sparked anger among students. These students too demanded free, public education. All of these movements remained essentially student-based despite their radicalism and thirst for direct democracy, but this would change a few years later.

 

Uprising in Bosnia

On February 4, 2014, a revolt broke out in Bosnia in the working-class city of Tuzla, in the northwest of the country,. Angered by unpaid wages, employees of privatized factories rose up and were quickly joined by local residents, who took up their cause. Together, they convened a city-wide plenary session to formulate their demands, addressed to the Tuzla Canton Parliament: a plenum was born! Armed with these demands, they stormed the canton’s government headquarters, denouncing the massive privatizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, corruption, and national divisions.

A series of demonstrations ensued in the face of the government’s lack of response. On February 7, a demonstration left around twenty people injured, government buildings were set on fire, and numerous arrests were made, marking the beginning of a major wave of protests that spread to other cities such as Sarajevo, Zenica, Mostar, and Bihać in a show of solidarity. The movement quickly gained momentum, attracting thousands of citizens angry at the government. Panicked by the show of force of the masses, most local ministers resigned, worried that the governed were taking back the reins of political life. Indeed, hundreds of citizens gathered in plenums, true experiments in direct democracy, which spread to other cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, inspired by the experience of Tuzla.

As the winds of anger reached the streets of Croatia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and elsewhere, in what could be called a Balkan Spring, Bosnian protesters were already reminding everyone that “hunger means the same thing in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian.” Demonstrations and plenums continued for several weeks, spreading to numerous cities, including Sarajevo, Tuzla, Zenica, Mostar, Travnik, Brčko, Goražde, Konjic, Cazin, Donji Vakuf, Fojnica, Orašje, and Bugojno. Regular sessions allowed residents to debate political issues and formulate demands for the government, such as a halt to privatizations, various social measures, and the elimination of privileges for the political class.

At the same time, the way plenums were organized was becoming more complex. The Tuzla plenum established specialized working groups, each focusing on a specific area, similar to the ministries of the Tuzla canton. These areas included education, science, culture and sport, economic development, land-use planning and environmental protection, coordination with workers, health, justice and governance, industry, energy and mining, internal security, agriculture, natural resource management, trade, tourism, transport and communication, social policy, finance, war veterans’ rights, and legal issues: all of which were addressed by plenum working groups.

Furthermore, attempts were made to coordinate the various plenums at a broader level, with the aim of developing common demands beyond the local level. Notably, joint plenums were organized in Sarajevo, bringing together delegations from various local plenums. As the Croatian writer Igor Štiks noted:

This movement experimented with direct democracy ... The city plenums found themselves in a “plenum of plenums,” reminiscent of the “assemblies of assemblies” of the French Yellow Vests.

Unfortunately, like the Yellow Vests, the plenum insurrection eventually fizzled out, hijacked by liberal activists. Much to the delight of the ruling classes, who, through their media, had not hesitated to demonize these events, speaking of “unrest” and “incidents.” In vain, since the movement was supported by 88% of the population, according to a poll. What really killed the movement was its marginalization by these same media, the repression, and the active support of the government by the international community. But this time, the plenums at least went beyond a purely student existence.

 

Serbia Rises

Today, plenums are making a comeback in Serbia, following a tragic event. On November 1, 2024, tragedy struck the city of Novi Sad. At around 11:50 a.m., the concrete canopy of the recently renovated train station suddenly collapsed, killing fifteen people and injuring many more. The building, constructed in 1964 in just eighteen months, was originally a symbol of modernity for the former Yugoslavia. However, decades of neglect and underfunding had transformed it into a dilapidated structure, necessitating a thorough renovation.

The rehabilitation work, launched late in 2021, was entrusted to a consortium of Chinese companies, in a context of economic rapprochement between Serbia and Beijing. The hasty reopening of the station in March 2022 was celebrated with great fanfare by Aleksandar Vučić, Serbian president, alongside Viktor Orbán, his Hungarian ally. Presented as a milestone towards a “modern and progressive Serbia,” this inauguration actually masked serious irregularities in the execution of the work. Doubts were already circulating about the solidity of the renovations, particularly concerning the reconstruction of the canopy, which ultimately collapsed, causing a national shock.

Initially, the government declared days of mourning and held vigils to honor the victims. But grief quickly gave way to anger. The accident sparked a wave of outrage across the country. Massive protests erupted, particularly among students, denouncing the government’s corruption and incompetence in managing infrastructure.

Initially limited to Novi Sad, the protests quickly spread to Belgrade and other Serbian cities, marking a turning point in social unrest. These demonstrations denounced the corruption, cronyism, and impunity of the authorities, who were held responsible for the tragedy. Faced with this growing protest, the authorities responded with repression: tear gas, mass arrests, and even physical violence against demonstrators. Cases of vehicles deliberately ramming into crowds were reported, further fueling the mobilization. In December, the demonstrations took on a broader dimension: they were no longer simply about the collapse of a building, but expressed a general dissatisfaction with a political system corrupted by years of authoritarianism and censorship.

On January 24, students called for a general strike, which found support in several sectors, including education, healthcare, transportation, and entertainment. As the movement intensified, several senior politicians, including Prime Minister Miloš Vučević, were forced to resign. However, the protesters deemed these concessions insufficient and maintained the pressure with four main demands:

1. 1. Publication of all documents related to the station renovation, in order to establish responsibilities and uncover possible cases of corruption.
   2. Identification and prosecution of those responsible for violence against protesters, including attacks during peaceful vigils.
   3. Charges against students arrested during protests must be dropped and ongoing proceedings suspended.
   4. A 20% increase in the higher education budget to reduce tuition fees and improve students’ living and study conditions.

This was the context of the return of plenums to organize the numerous student occupations and mass demonstrations. As with previous plenaries, they have no leaders, and all decisions are made collectively in an exercise in direct democracy, of which they are fierce defenders.

“Some tried to play this role [of leader] by speaking to the media too often and without permission from the plenum, but we quickly put a stop to that. Each of us changes roles all the time. This way, the authorities can’t manipulate, corrupt, or attack us personally. It also demonstrates our unity and encourages students from diverse backgrounds to join the movement,” explains Nemanja. Sara, who has been closely following the events from France, adds, “The organization of the protests is deliberately decentralized. We agreed that there would be no official organizers. We are following the organizational model of student initiatives in Serbia, which operate through plenums where everyone can express themselves.”

Lara, who speaks under a pseudonym for her safety but also because "individuals don’t have to distinguish themselves from the collective," explains how it works in more detail: “We begin the plenums with a minute of silence in tribute to the victims. Then, we vote on the agenda. There is a moderator and a clerk. Only students can vote; the teaching staff is only allowed to attend the sessions. Speaking time is equal, and in our case, it is limited to one minute. The arguments must be clear. We decide by majority vote ... We are organized into several working groups: strategy, external communication with other faculties, security, media, and even the organization of free activities.” This operation, divided into working groups, is reminiscent of the Bosnian plenums. It should be noted that Lara is also part of a group in charge of logistics, which takes care of food, sleeping bags, and first aid for the large demonstration in Niš on March 1.

Regarding coordination among the plenums, according to the Courrier des Balkans, a report from each group is submitted to the plenum, then to the working group that oversees all the faculties. The decision must then be submitted to the High Council of Delegates of the university, to which each faculty appoints a delegate and two witnesses to the plenum, who present the decisions of their faculties. The decision adopted by the High Council then returns to the plenum of each faculty for final confirmation.

This form of decentralized organization has now spread to all of the country’s occupied universities. The students have even implemented a sophisticated vote-counting system, called “Piton,” which assigns a lower weighting to the votes of private universities. One wonders if Serbia’s students are not currently the vanguard of the ongoing revolution. In any case, what is happening in Serbia is historic: at the time of writing, the mobilization has been going strong for four months now. The students are rallying many people to their cause, through long marches organized even in rural areas of the country, where they are welcomed as heroes by the locals, who distribute food and water to them. At nightfall, the students are invited to meals by the locals, who offer them food and sometimes even shelter.

As Nikola, who participated in the first march from Belgrade to Novi Sad (80 km) on  February 1, explains, thousands of students and citizens gathered to block the city’s three main bridges for twelve hours. He also went on a 150 km march from Belgrade to Kragujevac, where a large demonstration took place on February 15. He planned to march on March 1 from Bor to Niš^, where four strategic sites were blocked under the banner of “The Students’ Edict.”

We’re raising awareness in small towns and rural areas. We’re showing that we’re all in this together, and that despite our fatigue, sprains, blisters, and sometimes bloody feet, we’re determined. Human contact is crucial, as are modern technologies and the social media we use so extensively. And the response from citizens is so emotional that you forget you’re in pain! We never expected so many people to join us.

The other strong point, beyond their determination, is the humor and self-deprecation of the students, who practice irony and self-reflection, play on words, and analyze current Serbian society, a form of authoritarian regime that stifles its young people, who are now breathing thanks to this wind of freedom that they themselves have set in motion. For his part, the Serbian president displays an inflexible facade and pretends to ignore the demonstrations. Yet the signs are unmistakable: he is cornered by young people who are demanding that he and other leaders be held accountable. The movement is still far from running out of steam and, on March 1,  following the success of the large march between Bor and Niš, the students read their “edict” to the gathered crowd.

This document states that “Serbia is a nation of free citizens” and emphasizes that the country’s institutions “must serve the people, ensuring trust and transparency, rather than being exploited for individual interests.” It emphasizes the importance of independent universities and the judiciary, media freedom, respect for fundamental rights, and the promotion of knowledge.

As night fell, the rally continued in a serene atmosphere. A series of speakers took to the stage, highlighting the freedom of speech made possible by this four-month-old student mobilization. President Vučić once again attempted to downplay the scale of the movement, comparing it to a larger mobilization that took place in Kragujevac during the national holiday two weeks earlier. Whatever the future developments of this mobilization, which still faces the challenge of expanding to other sectors of society and becoming more widespread, students are playing a vanguard role, waiting to pass the torch to the general public. These plenum experiences already promise to be rich in lessons.

 

A new form of self-organization

There is a strong resemblance between these movements and the workers’ councils of the early twentieth century: the workers’ and peasants’ soviets in Russia in 1905 and 1917, the attempt at an Alsatian Republic of Councils in 1918, the experience of the workers’ councils in Turin in 1919, and the workers’ councils during the German revolution of 1918-19. Despite the differences, these forms of organization seem to have a certain consistency throughout history. We have already mentioned the popular assemblies in France during the Yellow Vest movement, the Occupy movement, and the experiences of popular assemblies in Syria and Chiapas. These examples resonate better with our contemporary era than workers’ councils, whose revolutionary potential now seems dated—even if it has to be looked out for in countries where the working class remains strong.

Regarding the “revolutionary subject” today, I wouldn’t say that the working class no longer exists or that it is no longer decisive. But we observe a multitude of actors who are not limited to the fantasized worker of the twentieth century, anchored in the frozen imagination of doctrinaire Marxists. These actors are decisive today, and in the case of the plenums, they are not workers but students—with the exception of the plenums in Bosnia in 2014. And even in this example, the struggle was not carried out directly in the factories, but rather in the streets and public spaces reappropriated by all citizens.

This is a phenomenon that calls certainties into question. Of course, this is not to deny the class struggle, which remains evident in many aspects of the various mobilizations of the plenary sessions, whether it is students demanding access to education for all regardless of income, or the workers of Tuzla in Bosnia demanding an end to privatizations and the payment of their salaries. But it is a struggle that originates primarily in universities or on the streets rather than in factories.

Nonetheless, as the experience of the plenums has shown, if students are not massively joined by other sectors of society, their transformation into a genuine emancipatory movement is doomed to failure. The example of May 1968 in France already demonstrated the pioneering role students can play: by initiating the first demonstrations, barricades, and concrete actions, they were followed by the workers’ movement, which responded to their call. Ultimately, it is this single spark that is missing for plenums of student origin—like those currently taking place in Serbia—to go further.

Class struggle also skillfully combines with the fight against hierarchies and leaders, as we saw in the plenums. This is a point too often overlooked, even though it can, on its own, degenerate or absorb any popular aspirations. Without a leader or political recovery, it is much more difficult for the ruling classes to negotiate with the rebels and propose compromises aimed at slowing the struggle. We’re looking at you, parties and unions!

It is by getting rid of all forms of hierarchy that the movement can fully exploit its radical nature and make demands that go far beyond simple reforms, which are merely bandages on an open wound. The point here is to reclaim power for the plenums, which have amply proven that citizens can govern themselves without the need for capitalist leaders. The Bosnian experience demonstrated this in its most advanced form. A fundamental difference between plenums and the soviets of yore lies in their inclusive nature. Unlike soviets, which were composed mainly of workers, peasants, and soldiers organized on professional and local bases (factory soviets, military garrison soviets, etc.), plenums are generally open to the entire population: students, workers, the unemployed, retirees, etc.

Plenums are also extremely critical of any hierarchy, rejecting leaders, parties, and unions, while soviets have, throughout history, often been co-opted by so-called communist parties. There are also marked differences with respect to the delegation of power. In soviets, delegation was generally more institutionalized: elected delegates made decisions for a collective and could, in theory, be dismissed. In plenums, if there are representatives, they tend to serve as spokespersons or regularly rotating coordinators. Decisions remain largely made by the assembly itself, which retains the ability to dismiss its representatives at any time.

However, despite these qualities, this form of organization also faces challenges. Plenums are sometimes not representative of the entire population. In Bosnia and Herzegovina some plenums brought together several thousand people. But in a city like Sarajevo, with a population of several hundred thousand, such a number remains a minority. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, in their most advanced form, plenums were supposed to represent both the city and the canton. However, for residents of rural areas far from urban centers, traveling to a plenum is time-consuming and can be costly. This problem already existed in the Athenian direct democracy of ancient Greece, and a solution was found then: citizens participating in assemblies and democratic institutions received a stipend called a misthos (salary). This allowed poor citizens and remote residents to take part in political life without sacrificing their working hours. Without it, only the wealthiest would have been able to attend the debates and vote.

Of course, there is no question of copying the Athenian model, which also had its flaws, but there are ways to overcome these obstacles. For example, dividing into neighborhood or village plenums could overcome this difficulty. And above all, we are in the twenty-first century: it is entirely possible to develop cyberdemocracy and thus find solutions to the many problems raised. The Internet has already demonstrated its importance in organizing protests and plenums. Plenums can be coordinated at different levels without resorting to the methods of the past. Thanks to current technologies, it is no longer necessary to transmit decisions via delegates or letters, as was done in Russia in 1917 or in Catalonia in 1936. The digital age now makes it possible to organize online referendums to facilitate collective decision-making. After all, if electronic voting is already used within the framework of bourgeois representative democracy and secure financial transactions take place daily, there is no reason why direct democratic consultations cannot be implemented via the Internet.

The real issue is not so much the availability of digital tools as their use to strengthen democracy. One of the main obstacles remains the resistance of capitalist elites, who control most of the technological infrastructure and have a vested interest in preserving the current system. A direct democracy will inevitably have to oppose these vested interests, which will lead to tensions and blockages on their part, as history has already shown.

This is why the plenums must be even more aggressive towards the leaders and demand power. If the soviets went further, it was precisely thanks to their radical slogan, “All power to the soviets!” They openly demanded the seizure of power in place of the bourgeois state. This is not yet the case with the plenums today, at least not massively, although a large banner proclaiming, “All power to the plenums” was to be seen at the entrance to the Serbian Ministry of Culture, before it was quickly removed. Despite this, the plenums remain mainly spaces for protest and demands, without any overt ambition to seize power. They are content with a list of demands, as the first soviets were before realizing that they did not need to be led and could exercise power themselves, without intermediaries.

Perhaps one day the plenums will rise up and brandish the slogan “All power to the plenums!” while taking care to exclude any leader, bureaucrat, or vanguard party that might seek to instrumentalize their struggle. On this point, the plenums already seem vigilant: their rejection of traditional forms of leadership and any attempt at co-optation by parties or unions bears witness to this.

The Balkan plenums serve as a reminder that direct democracy is not a distant utopia, but a very real possibility for those who refuse to be governed. Through their horizontal practices, they outline the contours of a post-capitalist future that would not simply repeat the models of the past, but would seek to invent new forms of self-organization adapted to our times.

Whether their slogan is proclaimed or not, the spirit of the twentieth-century soviets is already present in the assemblies of the Balkans. I could conclude with a call for “All power to the plenums!” but it is not for me to dictate the course of the struggles being ardently waged today. I prefer to give the final word to Nemanja, who is currently fighting in Serbia: “The machine can only get moving if everyone participates. We are not there yet, but at some point, like a storm, the anger pent up for years will burst forth and fundamentally change the way our society functions, where a direct and decentralized democracy will be established.”