NOVI SAD, Serbia – November 1st marked the one-year anniversary of the tragic collapse of the Novi Sad railway station that claimed 16 lives in 2024. Tens of thousands of protesters made their way to Serbia’s second-largest city (with some even walking long distances to attend) to commemorate the accident and demand accountability. Official police estimates indicate around 39,000 demonstrators, though aerial angles and reports on the ground suggest the turnout may have been much larger, possibly nearing 100,000, according to Al Jazeera. Although the main purpose of the event was commemorative, highlighted by a 16-minute moment of silence—one minute for every victim—for many, it also doubled as another anti-government rally. The demonstration had several speakers, ranging from university students and activists to a mother of one of the victims, Dijana Hrka, whose speech was marked by calls for transparency and accountability for those responsible for the disaster.

The collapse of the railway station last November caused public outrage and accusations of corruption. The student-led movement has seriously challenged President Aleksander Vučić’s 13-year hold on power in the country, with accusations of corruption, ties to organized crime, media suppression, and the use of violence against his political rivals. Vučić denies the allegations and has previously accused opposition students of accepting foreign money and attempting to “topple the government,” according to Reuters. More recently, however, in a televised public address, Vučić apologized for his previously harsh sentiments and acknowledged the need for dialogue.

While Vučić’s claims of foreign involvement appear largely unfounded, public accusations of governmental corruption seem to hold some legitimacy. An independent commission tasked with investigating corruption in Vučić’s government presented its findings to the European Parliament several weeks ago. Retired Supreme Court judge Radmila Dičić Dragićević said, “Our conclusion is that there is a high degree of corruption reaching the very top of the state.” She went on further to explain the likely relation between the aforementioned corruption and the roof collapse, pointing out that “Corruption led to lowered construction standards and the hiring of unqualified subcontractors.” Despite the report, government officials continue to deny the allegations, with President Vučić and parliament speaker Ana Brnabić speculating that the collapse could have been an act of terrorism, an unfounded position widely dismissed by critics.

The duration of the protests alone, having just passed the one-year mark, indicates just how lacking the government’s response has been to the crisis and its adjacent criticisms. Vučić has recently called for dialogue, challenging protesters to a “conversation and a public debate about visions.” He paired his challenge to open dialogue with a call to condemn violence, something that protesters would likely take serious issue with. In early September, thousands of students took to the streets of Belgrade, the nation’s capital, to protest the use of excessive force on protesters. The accusations of excessive violence are echoed by opposition parties and rights watchdogs. The hypocrisy between his calls for peace and his harsh rhetoric (calling them “terrorists”) and treatment of protesters (tear gas, stun grenades, numerous arrests) calls into serious question the legitimacy of his emphasis on public debate. With his words and actions so far apart, it is hard for his opposition to meaningfully assess the seriousness of anything he says.

Vučić’s bigger issue lies in his lack of a satisfactory explanation for why nobody has been held responsible for the roof collapse. September saw some progress in this department, with 13 people being formally indicted by a prosecutor on charges related to public safety. The indictments, however, have not been confirmed by the court, which must happen in order to proceed to a trial. At the time of this writing, it has been nearly 2 months since the indictments, and courts have yet to verify any of them.

Holding those responsible for the accident will be hugely helpful to any resolution, but that alone will not suffice. The incident has become symbolic of rampant government corruption, which has, according to the report presented to the European Parliament, reached “the very top of the state.” Oppositionists’ demands include not only accountability for those involved in the initial incident, but also sweeping governmental anti-corruption measures and early elections to challenge the support of Vučić’s government on the ballot. President Vučić has indicated an open mind to the country holding early elections, provided the “relevant institutions take the necessary steps.” He has also acknowledged the need to fight corruption, describing himself as “very much devoted to lead that fight, to lead the struggle [against corruption].”

His response to each of the three major demands of protesters (holding officials accountable, early elections, and reducing corruption) places the burden to initiate change on either himself or the government at large. If battling governmental corruption is the core concern of the public, placing the power for change in the hands of the government seems doomed to fail, and Vučić’s government has embodied that failure thus far; protests have continued accordingly. To achieve meaningful change and social rest, one might start by placing the power to make changes directly in the hands of the ordinary citizen. Nobody has more incentive to prevent corruption than the government’s subjects. Giving them the ability to directly help shape corruption measures could make an enormous difference. Should Vučić facilitate a national referendum for some similar mechanism for active involvement in anti-corruption measures, and ensure their quick and effective implementation, he may even be able to retain his seat through the rest of his Presidential term. Such a referendum, paired with the preservation of current prominent government figures, could result in serious reforms while also avoiding a power vacuum in the face of social unrest.

This is far from the only solution, though. Vučić’s calls for dialogue should not be ignored simply because they are hypocritical or inconsistent. Free, public dialogue is essential for the success of any functioning democratic society. Protesters and opposition leaders are going to need to be willing to engage in meaningful dialogue with the President, regardless of their differences. It is never guaranteed that such discussions will reap immediate results or practical solutions, but the prospect of them will never disappear. Digital “echo-chambers” on social media have made the result of infrequent interaction with opposing politics clear: in the absence of dialogue, polarization will ensue, and polarization has a nasty habit of eroding democratic institutions.