What we didn't know about them

Since when did they start? student protests, there was a lot of discussion about this - what students really want, what their values are, whether they are more left or right, what they stand for... There was talk and chatter, analysis and claims, and the most honest ones said that it was not at all clear to them how such young people emerged from such a society and state.

Slobodan G. Marković, professor of political anthropology at Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade and the Institute for European Studies, and Miloš Bešić, professor of methodology and sociology at the same faculty, conducted research on the attitudes of students of the University of Belgrade and the University of Arts, participants of the plenum, which is the first such research in Serbia.

It covered a wide range of topics that shed light on the political and social beliefs of students. Among other things, the questions related to what the students see as the biggest problem in Serbia, how they would express themselves in the referendum on membership in the European Union, how much importance they attach to national identity, who they recognize as allies in the struggle to achieve the protest demands, but also what is their attitude towards political parties. They also answered questions about their motivations for participating in protests and what, in their opinion, most precisely defines protests.

We talk with Professor Marković and Professor Bešić about the results of the research, but also about how students like this happened to us and how we could actually predict it, and what trends we are currently witnessing.

"VREME": You were present at more than ten plenums. What are your impressions about it - how does the plenum work, how do the students cope with it?

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: I was present only for the agenda item that concerned the filling out of the survey and usually for the adoption of the agenda. My impressions are the same as those I expressed when we talked last time - students are very parliamentary and inclusive in plenums, and their respect for different points of view is visible. Generation X would have a lot to learn from them in this regard. Also, they got used to the principle of direct democracy and adopted certain procedures that allowed them to make decisions despite the fact that many people want to express their opinion, that everyone is encouraged to do so and that discussions often last several hours. It is impressive that from very different positions they manage to crystallize the general position of one plenum, and of all at the level of Serbia.

What, based on the data you got in your research, is what students actually want?

MILOS BESIC: The picture of their views is quite colorful - there are both liberal and conservative, and those who are in favor of joining the European Union and those who are against - but the key message of this research is that students are fighting for justice, and against violence and repression. Those two aspects are on the pedestal - everything else, although no less important, is in the function of that struggle. As many as two-thirds of them, when asked what best defines the current student protest, say that it is a fight for justice, and they see togetherness and unity as the greatest strength of the protest (about 19 percent), followed by solidarity, perseverance... They see corruption as Serbia's biggest problem, and then the concentration of power in the hands of its president. All this goes in favor of the fight against injustice. It is interesting, in the same spirit, that when asked - if a goldfish offered you to make one big change in Serbia, what would it be, 40 percent of them say: "Institutions and rule of law", and 22 percent "change of government", which again means that, after the change of government, there would be rule of law and the work of institutions. Everything else, starting with economic development, is less important to them.

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: And when we look at the most important reason - why they decided to protest - the rule of law dominates here as well. The rule of law is one of the main mottos of the entire protest. Also, when asked what unites male and female students in the protest, the answer is struggle and justice for one quarter of respondents, followed by future and hope (21%), solidarity and togetherness (17%), love and patriotism (13%). This means that the participants of the plenum in Serbia, as well as the Zoomers, are highly motivated to take action with values and clear attitudes.

When it comes to values, texts have recently appeared, for example by the German journalist Martens or the economist Branko Milanović - but also by others - where the students in the protest are described as too national, authoritarian... How far do these views correspond with the results of your research?

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: According to the findings of this research, as well as the large European research from 2018, they do not correspond in almost anything. Students are divided along the liberal-conservative axis, just as the entire society in Serbia is also divided. Although, if we were to make an average value, students would be 2/3 liberal, 1/3 conservative, while for society in Serbia it is the other way around. It is important to make a note here. The classic radical divisions of conservative-liberal and left-right are inapplicable to zoomers. With them, people with liberal views show openness to people with conservative views and vice versa. It is also a product of inclusiveness and fluidity that do not exist in such forms in older generations.

The survey says that for 19,5 percent of students national identity is very important, for 46 percent it is important, which means that the conservative potential is limited to one fifth. Support for joining the EU is higher than at the level of the whole of Serbia. In short, I think that those who think that students are too "national" are deeply mistaken. And not only among students in Serbia, but among students in general. Research from 2018 (European Value Study, EVS) showed that the democratic potential of zoomers in Serbia is far greater than that of any other zoomers in any other European country.

MILOS BESIC: Yes. If you look at the picture of democratic orientation at the level of Europe, you will see that every next generation, starting with the baby boomers, is characterized by a lower level of democratic orientation than the previous one, which is quite suitable for right-wing sovereignist, nationalist projects all over the continent. But in Serbia, the situation is different. For some reason, Zoomers are becoming more democratic, which distinguishes them from their peers both in Europe and in the region.

How do you interpret that result?

MILOS BESIC: When we recently asked students - do they think that their movement, as part of a worldwide movement, affects the democratization of the planet, almost 70 percent of them think that it does. It may sound prosaic, but in some idyllic picture it could mean that the Zoomers in Serbia were the first to awaken the necessary sense of democracy and the readiness to defend it. If you look at the literature, Chomsky has already declared the end of democracy, Piketty writes that corporate capitalism because of its greed has actually eaten democracy. But most often you will hear this thesis from liberal theoreticians in political sociology - that the problem lies in the absence of people's willingness to fight for democracy. Why? Because they are disappointed and no longer believe in her. Perhaps, in a paradoxical twist, it was the harsh suppression of democratic standards in Serbia that forced the young generation to start caring about democracy; a repressive and authoritarian regime made them understand the value of democracy as an authentic alternative to what they witness every day. And they have an intense need to take it beyond the borders of their country. In the end, you saw how the region reacted to them in solidarity. In all these countries there is a crude, party feudalism - which goes beyond partitocracy - and people are very angry about it, and they recognized the struggle against it in the students.

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: However, I would add that I think it is a broader phenomenon that we are yet to witness. Zoomers overturned the elections in Romania, let's remember Brexit when they didn't go to the polls en masse. It seems to me that there is a gradual maturation of the buzzers at the European level, that they realize that they may or may not like parliamentary democracy and that they are worried that their voice is not being heard enough, but that if they do not participate, they themselves are putting their own future in question. On the other hand, as this research shows, they have tools that previous generations did not have, primarily digital tools that influence the market, what and how it is sold, so they slowly realize that they can also influence the political market, and thus realize their potential power, which will probably lead to their greater and greater participation. Now the question arises as to why we did not see their participation in previous research. Because we didn't know how to recognize it, we didn't see that clicktivism, liking, really affects social reality.

All this sheds a different light on social networks, theories about digital media that say that especially young people are trapped in echo-chambers or bubbles without contact with different opinions.

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: I usually tell students that if Marx were alive today, he would not say: "Proletarians of all countries, unite", but "Babblers of all kinds, unite". It is clear that we all live in bubbles, but they are not as isolated as we think. In our research, we have information that 95 percent of the plenum participants speak English. Therefore, it is easiest for them to communicate with the world, it is easier for them to do so than any previous generation in Serbia or Yugoslavia, both because of the digital age and because of their knowledge of English.

Let's get back to research. You mentioned that students are more liberal than the general population. But when Boomers and Millennials say nationalism on the one hand, and Zoomers on the other, do they mean the same thing? Are there nuances?

MILOS BESIC: Let me add this, in terms of the level of permissiveness (anti-conservatism - attitude about the justification of abortion, prostitution...) our young people do not differ from their peers. That is, they are emphatically permissive, which means that, regardless of whether they are left or right oriented, inclusiveness is their mainstream. It is a kind of - when it comes to national and religious identity - inclusive heterogeneity.

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: When national identity is placed in the context of inclusiveness, it means something different than when it is not placed that way. And this can be seen from the flags that were flown at the protests - where the flags of the Bosniak National Council and Serbia can be together, while it would be a little more difficult for the IX. We saw a protest in Novi Pazar, organizing an iftar in Niš, a protest in front of RTS... At all these events, students came together. There's a maturity there that the X-Men didn't have. They thought - especially the liberal ones - that everyone should look like some kind of mold. Zoomer students, their generation understands that people have different cultural values, but they don't see why people with different cultural values shouldn't cooperate and be together. And for the first time, Bosniaks who stick to their traditions appeared and everyone told them - it's good that you stick to your traditions, that doesn't make you any further away from us, and we stick to ours, it can all work together. Also, with the participants of the plenum, we see how the conservative spectrum can understand the messages of the liberal and vice versa, which is much more difficult to achieve than generation X and baby boomers.

And now it is necessary to return to the issue of messages from the Vidovdan protest. In the context of what we're talking about and your research, how do they sound to you?

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: As for the speeches at the protests, they were very liberal in Kragujevac, the Edict of Niš is also very liberal, but Vidovdan is a specific holiday, both state and religious. If we already have 30-35 percent of conservatives - which is far less than at the level of Serbia - I do not understand how anyone thinks of democratizing Serbia without taking that part into account. It is obvious that part of the students thought that that part of Serbia should also be heard. Now, whether we like it or not, let's try to be as inclusive as they are.

By the way, in the survey, when asked what force can lead to changes in Serbia, in addition to themselves - students - 56 percent put civil society as that force, which shows considerable maturity, and at the same time explains why choirs are so popular in this population. All this, when added up, brings me back to the hypothesis from which I started - based on what I saw in Kragujevac and Niš - that students are representatives of constitutional patriotism that enables everyone to feel like citizens of one country, which brings us back to the previous question and that they believe that the current Constitution of Serbia from 2006, which deals with human rights and freedom in 1/3 of its articles, as well as the current institutions, really ensure the possibility of the rule of law in Serbia, only if the institutions worked, and the Constitution was respected.

When we talk about political maturity, which is what you are talking about, the results regarding attitudes towards opposition political parties are interesting. Namely, according to the research, students rate them the lowest on the list of potential allies in these protests (high school graduates and high school students are on the first place, then actors and artists, then professors, educators, peasants and workers...), but again, as many as 80 respondents participated in the elections. Is it a proof of that maturity or something else? And what does that attitude towards the parties say?

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: Our research shows that the participants of the plenum have, under one, serious reservations about the extent to which political parties are able to change society. In their political experience, they really did not manage to change much because in Serbia since 2014 there has been a consolidation of only one party, and since 2018 there has been a sharp decline in the rating of democracy and other freedoms. They do not have the experience, like the older generations, from the nineties, and from 2000 to 2012, so they cannot compare. However, half of them believe that despite not having confidence in them, the parties can still make a certain change. And that was before political articulation. In the meantime, the awareness that change can be made primarily through elections has matured. Also, despite the fact that they have been living in a crisis of democracy for the last 12 years - which is not only the case in Serbia, but the third wave of autocratization is underway worldwide - students are not abstinent (80 percent turned out in the previous elections). Second, we asked them the reason why the opposition political parties failed to bring about change. A huge number think that it is due to the divisions among them - which is a warning for the parties - and a third see the reason in the dominance of one political party that stifled the possibility of free political competition, which agrees with the analysis of political analysts. Finally, it was seen in the previous local elections in Kosjerić and Zaječar that they are ready to help with the organization when necessary.

You both mentioned the different approach of students compared to some older generations, greater tolerance, less need to mold others. It seems, when we talk about students in the plenum, that the attitude towards violence is different. To what extent is that true?

MILOS BESIC: As I said, repression bothers them the most. It only strengthens their sense of resistance - about a third of the students in the survey cite this as the reason for the protest. And as many as 96 percent believe that there is repression against political dissidents in Serbia, while only two out of 515 say that there is none. And that was before the July repression. Then another question arises - why does the government, if it is aware of it, behave this way. I think the answer is very simple - this regime doesn't know any other way, it's the only language it understands. And it's not just about physical violence, back to the question. We are already living in a time when people have forgotten how hard the words used here are. We have been exposed to media-discursive violence for years; in Serbia, new forms of tabloidization have been invented that serve only that purpose. Do people even understand how hard the word terrorist or traitor is? Verbal violence is also violence, and I think that Zoomers have a much lower degree of tolerance for any type of violence, that they recognize and identify it better, some formats in particular.

Finally, you mentioned the relationship with the European Union. What exactly do the results say - if a referendum were held, how would students vote?

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: The findings say that 32 percent do not know how to vote, and of those who do know, 59 percent would vote for joining the EU, 41 percent are against. That is more than in the last Ipsos survey at the level of the whole of Serbia. I draw attention to three things: we do not have other plenums in the sample, say Novi Sad; a significant part of the research was done before going to Brussels and Strasbourg, so I think that percentage would even be slightly higher in favor of the EU. By focusing on inclusivity, tolerance and defending one's own autonomy, Zoomers live European values in Serbia, which is even more emphasized by the members of the plenum. At the same time, they have a certain deviation from the institutional arrangements of the EU. Compared to the Iksovs, the Zoomers in Serbia are fundamentally closer to the EU. In 2000, the people of Iksov accepted an idealized EU, but much less European values. Students in Serbia today are much closer to the EU as a community of values than any generation before them.

When you look at this research and what is happening these days in Serbia, what do you think the next months or even years will look like?

MILOS BESIC: SNS came to power in 2012, when the most popular social network was Facebook, and Instagram was just starting to catch up. The data of our research shows that no one uses Facebook anymore, but that students get information exclusively through Instagram, and in second place is TikTok, which did not even exist in 2012. At that time, the limit for effective use of social networks was 42 years old - people up to the age of 42 used them more or less. Now it has moved to 60. So, two things are running parallel and overlapping here: demographic changes and the digital-IT revolution. Every year since the SNS came to power, around 40.000 people have entered and left the electorate, so that is all about those who have passed away. In other words, half a million people left this world, and half a million people entered the electorate. Those who used Instagram in 13 are also 2012 years older on average. The government does not understand this, but still thinks that they can solve the problem with this media repression, by buying all the media. And I can't. Young people don't even watch TV. Every year, about 40.000 people come to watch those scenes from Informer just to make fun of them. Those two trends I mentioned are reflected in the research and show why the capacity for resistance is so high here.

SLOBODAN MARKOVIC: I would not deal with forecasts, but I can say the same as the previous time - the legitimacy of the regime has been irreversibly challenged, which is especially visible at the bar. Second, there have been a number of local initiatives. This speaks volumes about the energy in Serbia, which wants democratization and the rule of law. When all that is taken into account, I see no other way to resolve the crisis than through elections. Of course, society is polarized and divided. Far from being the only such society, many European societies are divided. Precisely in divided societies, there is no other way to channel different interests than through political elections. However, regardless of the outcome, division will remain, society will remain divided even after the election. But this kind of energy that now exists in Serbia in the struggle for democratization shows that it is possible to solve the whole matter in favor of a more thorough democratization of the country.

Paraphrasing to some extent Klaus Offe, I would say that during the nineties we had an emphasis on one level of hierarchical decision-making in the political system - which is the level of identity, and that ethnicization of politics swallowed up the other levels. The second level of decision-making refers to the constitution and the institutional framework, and the third to interests, political and economic. In societies that reduce everything to identity, ethnicization of politics becomes a substitute for achieving a constitutional, institutional arrangement that is acceptable to the relevant majority. In Serbia, there is no political system at all three levels, to some extent Serbia has returned to identity issues, but the student movement has returned Serbia to the constitutional track and constantly reminds it of the second level, of the importance of institutions and the constitution, which is a prerequisite for a discussion about democracy and interests, about the division of political and economic power. If there is no constitutional arrangement, that is, if the constitution is not respected, then there is no third level of articulation of interests through mutual agreement. In order to marginalize that second level, the authorities always, when they appeal to passions, actually manipulate from the background through the constant production of identity issues. Now, on the social stage of Serbia, there is a generation that is far from being able to be manipulated by identity issues. They care about identity, they have an identity and respect it, they also respect the identity of others, but their world simply does not end there. For them, identity is a stepping stone to the constitution, not a way around the constitution. It is one of the biggest innovations that the student movement has brought.

Research ID card

As Bešić and Marković explain, the research was conducted exclusively among students - participants of 12 plenums of the University of Belgrade and the University of Arts in Belgrade. Plenums were chosen so that all groups of sciences were equally represented. The total number of respondents is 515, and the research lasted from January 23 to May 20 - that is, before the final political articulation of the student movement. The authors note that the results would probably have been different if all students of the University of Belgrade had been included in the research - in that case, they believe, the degree of political participation and readiness for protests would probably have been lower.