To avoid boring the reader with definitions and theories, let’s put it simply and briefly – every story has some kind of initial state A, and some kind of ending state B (either new or a restored old state). How we get from A to B – that is the story. Suppose it were obvious from the very beginning that we would inevitably move from A to B, and that this alone were all there was to it – there would be no reason for us to care about the story. Something has to interfere, to delay the story from reaching B. Disagreements and conflicts between the actors, for example. Or other obstacles. Or evil antagonists – say, those who benefit from us remaining in state A.

That is probably enough abstraction; the reader can imagine the diagram and all the possible loops between A and B. Let us return, instead, to the reality of Serbia. Our starting state A is Serbia suffering under a criminal regime led by Vučić. The end of the story must be, and will be, Serbia’s liberation from Vučić’s regime. The climax of the story should be elections, as a decisive turning point in the fate of both the collective and individual actors in power and within the rebellious society. Right now, we are somewhere between A and B, but it also feels as though the climax itself keeps slipping further away.

That sadistic game of toying with election dates is also part of the story – the part created and carried out by the evil antagonist. His idea is to wear us down, exhaust us, and make us sick even of the thought of elections before we can begin enjoying our dreams of liberation come true. On our side, meanwhile, the story consists of searching for ways to force elections – that is, to compel the regime to call them – of constantly counting how many we are, and of checking whether we trust one another and whether each of us is ready for the sacrifices needed both to reach elections and to win them.

Still, all of that is not enough for us to follow the story day by day. Put it this way – if every actor has their role and knows their goal, then they should simply be left to do their job, while we calmly sit and wait for the moment when we ourselves enter the story – meaning the election. In other words, we stop following the story; we disconnect from it, and that weakens the will to fight and to win. The story has to be more interesting in order to hold our attention day after day, which is again necessary if we are to stay together and strengthen mutual trust by sharing emotions toward the events and the actors in the story.

Now then, the main antagonist is endlessly predictable and boring, and his main intention is to push us out of the story altogether. One cannot even count on him to make the story more interesting, even though that is usually the antagonist’s basic role in storytelling (think of the legendary Alexis from Dynasty). That is why quasi-antagonists must be sought within our own ranks. Of course, not because we truly believe they exist or that they could actually ruin anything, but simply because they are needed for the story, so that the story remains interesting day after day, keeps our attention, and sustains fighting morale.

If all this reminds the reader of the structure of a soap opera (and it should, hence Alexis) – especially those soap operas whose authors stretch a few days of plot across a dozen episodes (like Netflix’s Virgin River or Sullivan’s Crossing, for example) – then the reader is on the right track. What I mean is: we are trapped in exactly such a narrative loop, and that is why we have all these stories about the number of electoral lists, about parties standing with students and parties standing alone, about opposition groups oriented toward the EU and right-wing opposition supposedly guided by national consciousness (as though joining the EU could not itself be in the national interest).

Let me add this as well – our story is painfully simple and predictable: we all know how it ends. This regime will fall sooner or later, and it would be better for everyone, including the regime itself, if that happened sooner. The dividing line has been clearly drawn, and there will not be many people crossing from one side to the other. All of this means there is not much potential for an especially compelling story. And yet we need an interesting story in order to become emotionally attached to it. And we become attached to it because in doing so we confirm that we are part of the community of rebellious citizens of Serbia. So then, in order to have a story, we ourselves invent plot twists and declare protagonists and antagonists amongst ourselves, without any real reason.

On election day, there should not be the slightest doubt that every member of the rebellious society will do exactly what needs to be done and what they expect from one another. How many separate columns the rebellious society will march to the election in is almost entirely irrelevant. Whether there will be one, two, or three electoral lists – none of that will change anything, nor will any of it benefit the regime. In the end, one should also trust the rebellious citizens of Serbia – even if one of the collective actors makes a mistake, why do we think people will not see it, understand it, and behave accordingly?

These will not be elections about programs, nor ideological preferences. In these elections, the citizens of Serbia will choose between survival and disappearance. Or, to put it in keeping with the genre of our story, which is pure epic fantasy, what we are witnessing is a struggle of good against evil. We will vote for light against darkness. There will be no room for colors or nuances. And if there are multiple lists from the rebellious society, and there will be, the differences between them, in light of the fundamental divide, will pale in comparison, while the main distinction will be established in opposition to the principal collective and individual antagonist who embodies darkness.

What I mean is this: whoever finds it entertaining and wants to remain part of the story can follow the events and negotiations and disagreements and splits within the opposition daily; they can hope for, fear, or completely oppose an agreement between students and the opposition. But from the perspective of the story’s ending, all of that is secondary. What matters is that we have a story before that ending arrives – let us repeat that once more at the end of this article – so that we remain involved, so that our attention does not scatter, so that we can draw motivation from it for the everyday things that must be done in order to go into elections prepared, and so that we can reassure one another that we are here, and that when the decisive moment comes, we can trust one another.

Translated by Marijana Simić

Peščanik.net, 21.05.2026.


PODRŽITE PEŠČANIK
The following two tabs change content below.

Dejan Ilić

Dejan Ilić (1965) je bio urednik izdavačke kuće Fabrika knjiga i časopisa Reč. Diplomirao je na Filološkom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, magistrirao na Programu za studije roda i kulture na Centralnoevropskom univerzitetu u Budimpešti i doktorirao na istom univerzitetu na Odseku za rodne studije. U Fabrici knjiga objavio je zbirke eseja Osam i po ogleda iz razumevanja (2008), Tranziciona pravda i tumačenje književnosti: srpski primer (2011), Škola za „petparačke“ priče. Predlozi za drugačiji kurikulum (2016), Dva lica patriotizma (2016), Fantastična škola. Novi prilozi za drugačiji kurikulum: sf, horror, fantastika (2020). Objavio je i knjige Srbija u kontinuitetu (Peščanik, 2020) i Odrastanje u Srbiji. Izlazak iz komfora nezrelosti (XX vek, 2025). Sarajevski Centar za obrazovne inicijative 2025. ponovo je objavio Školu za „petparačke“ priče i Fantastičnu školu, a s njima i njegovu novu, treću knjigu u istom nizu Škola za bogove i superjunake. Još priloga za drugačiji kurikulum. Od 2004. je saradnik Peščanika gde piše redovne komentare na tekuće (političke) događaje.

Author: Dejan Ilić

Dejan Ilić (1965) je bio urednik izdavačke kuće Fabrika knjiga i časopisa Reč. Diplomirao je na Filološkom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu, magistrirao na Programu za studije roda i kulture na Centralnoevropskom univerzitetu u Budimpešti i doktorirao na istom univerzitetu na Odseku za rodne studije. U Fabrici knjiga objavio je zbirke eseja Osam i po ogleda iz razumevanja (2008), Tranziciona pravda i tumačenje književnosti: srpski primer (2011), Škola za „petparačke“ priče. Predlozi za drugačiji kurikulum (2016), Dva lica patriotizma (2016), Fantastična škola. Novi prilozi za drugačiji kurikulum: sf, horror, fantastika (2020). Objavio je i knjige Srbija u kontinuitetu (Peščanik, 2020) i Odrastanje u Srbiji. Izlazak iz komfora nezrelosti (XX vek, 2025). Sarajevski Centar za obrazovne inicijative 2025. ponovo je objavio Školu za „petparačke“ priče i Fantastičnu školu, a s njima i njegovu novu, treću knjigu u istom nizu Škola za bogove i superjunake. Još priloga za drugačiji kurikulum. Od 2004. je saradnik Peščanika gde piše redovne komentare na tekuće (političke) događaje.