Half a million in Belgrade, half a million in Zagreb: Two models of social mobilization

Two mass public gatherings – one in Belgrade 15. On March, the second in Zagreb at the concert of Marko Perkovic Thompson – they have opened the space for a deeper analysis of modern forms of social cohesion, the response to injustice and the way collective energy is manifested into a public act. At first glance, similar in numbers, these gatherings point to two substantially different configurations of social order and feelings of togetherness.

Belgrade rally was not organized from above. It did not have a clear carrier, leader or program framework. It was created in response to years-long suppression of injustice, unsolved deaths, lack of institutional empathy. Silence was the principal expression. The lack of sound rhetoric did not mean passivity, but exactly the opposite – a deep resistance to politicizing pain. In a society that is institutionally devastated, with the mechanisms of justice and accountability collapsed, this kind of gathering is becoming an expression of basic moral rebellion.

She is not seeking a change in government – she is seeking a fundamental change in her attitudes towards life, towards sacrifice, towards truth.

FIND OUT MORE:

The Zagreb concert presents the opposite model. Clearly structured event with identified performer, stage, narrative and symbols. In this case, the collective is gathered around a clear idea of national identity and continuity of force. The form is entertaining, but the content is deeply political. The songs that are performed carry historical messages, they are a part of cultural memory and ideological narratives. In a society that built its statehood through conflict and where identity is often defended through myths, such gatherings function as an emotional validation of belonging.

What distinguishes them is not only the content, but the function in the social organism.

Belgrade walk reveals society in a state of civil frustration. Citizens, deprived of institutional protection, assume the role of corrective. This indicates that the political order no longer corresponds to even the elementary ethical demands of the community. It is a symptom of a deeper legitimacy crisis, but also a sign that resistance mechanisms are still alive, albeit fragmented.

The Zagreb Assembly, on the contrary, shows a functional relationship between the dominant ideology and the people. The system affirms the narrative, the people accept it, a public event cements it. There is no immediate conflict between citizens and government structures – but their symbolic synergy. The problem arises when the content of that communion becomes ideologically exclusive or when the ability to critically reflect on one’s own history is lacking.

In that sense, the Belgrade walk represents a spontaneous expression of horizontal solidarity in a society that no longer expects anything from the above. The Zagreb concert is an expression of vertical integration in a value system that does not encourage doubt, but loyalty.

In conclusion, both gatherings talk about the state of social tissue.

In Belgrade – about its vulnerability, but also the potential for organic resistance.

In Zagreb – about his stability, but also about the possible imprisonment to another and different.

These are not gatherings that oppose each other. They stand as mirrors of two different stages of social development: one in the fight for the right to vote, the other in confirming the vote that already dominates.

In both cases, the question remains the same: what kind of society are we shaping – through silence or through song?