❌

Normal view

From Brussels to Belgrade: Europe’s Generation Z Protests Challenge Established Politics

29 October 2026 at 20:06

Youth-led demonstrations across Europe are bringing together concerns about housing, education, employment and political accountability. Although the movements differ considerably between countries, their emergence reflects growing dissatisfaction among younger Europeans over economic prospects and their influence on political decisions.

A series of demonstrations involving young people across Europe has developed into a wider political phenomenon, as students and younger workers challenge governments over living costs, public services and their expectations for the future.

Protests have taken place in France, Belgium, Italy, Albania and several other countries, while a student-led movement in Serbia has achieved a particularly consequential political outcome.

In Serbia, nearly two years of demonstrations culminated in a parliamentary election victory for a student-backed political movement, ending the electoral dominance of President Aleksandar Vučić’s Serbian Progressive Party.

The outcome, reported by Reuters on 29 October, has given the movement a prospective parliamentary majority, although final certification of the election results remains outstanding.

Elsewhere, protesters have secured fewer immediate political concessions.

Nevertheless, their campaigns share a recurring concern: that conventional channels of political representation have failed to address problems affecting younger generations.

Economic Pressures Behind the Demonstrations

The grievances vary between countries, but housing affordability, insecure employment, education funding and living costs feature prominently.

A European Parliament youth survey published in February 2025 found that 40 per cent of respondents aged 16 to 30 considered rising prices and the cost of living a priority for the EU.

Almost one-third identified economic conditions and job creation as a principal concern, while education also ranked prominently.

More recent figures illustrate the financial pressures confronting younger Europeans.

According to Eurostat data published in June 2026, 24.2 per cent of EU residents aged 15 to 29 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2025.

That compares with 20.9 per cent for the population as a whole.

These figures do not establish that economic hardship is the cause of every protest. They do, however, provide context for the dissatisfaction expressed by participants.

Belgium’s Students Demand Better Education

In Brussels, demonstrations have focused partly on the condition of schools and the availability of educational resources.

Students have criticised deteriorating facilities, shortages of teachers and government decisions affecting education funding.

Nineteen-year-old student Maya Gourdel told Reuters that peaceful attempts to draw attention to these concerns had attracted little response from political leaders.

Her account reflects a wider frustration among demonstrators who believe that public attention has increased only after protests became more disruptive.

Belgium’s education system is organised primarily at community level, meaning decisions concerning funding, staffing and school infrastructure are divided among different authorities.

The demands of protesters consequently involve both national political debates and decisions taken by regional and community institutions.

France and Italy Face Wider Social Unrest

In France, demonstrations concerning the cost of living and public services have involved students alongside trade unions and other organisations.

Recent protests have also been accompanied by violence, including attacks on commercial premises and confrontations with police.

The involvement of younger demonstrators does not mean that every participant supports violent tactics.

Rather, the events illustrate how movements with economic and political grievances can encompass groups with different objectives and methods.

Italy has experienced similar tensions, particularly in Milan, where demonstrations against rising living costs have followed earlier episodes of unrest.

The Italian government has faced pressure over household expenditure, wages and the affordability of essential services.

These disputes have developed against a background of high energy prices and concerns about the broader economic outlook.

Albania’s Frustration With Political Institutions

In Albania, student-led protests have challenged Prime Minister Edi Rama’s government over alleged corruption, limited employment opportunities and education standards.

Demonstrations that began in Tirana have spread to other cities.

On 29 October, opposition lawmakers disrupted proceedings in parliament following weeks of protests and confrontations between demonstrators and police.

The government has offered measures intended to address economic concerns while condemning violence associated with the demonstrations.

For many younger Albanians, employment prospects are closely connected to the possibility of emigrating.

The perception that professional opportunities depend on political connections or personal networks has become another source of dissatisfaction.

However, the Albanian movement cannot be treated as identical to protests in EU member states, given the country’s different economic conditions and political institutions.

Serbia Shows the Political Potential of Student Movements

Serbia provides the most substantial example of youth-led protest translating into electoral change.

The movement emerged after the collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad in November 2024, which killed 16 people and prompted allegations of corruption and negligence.

Students organised prolonged demonstrations demanding accountability and institutional reform.

Their campaign subsequently developed into an electoral challenge to the governing Serbian Progressive Party.

Preliminary results from the October 2026 parliamentary election indicate that the student-backed list has secured a majority of seats.

However, electoral certification and the formation of a new government remain incomplete.

The movement now faces a different challenge: converting protest demands into administrative decisions, legislation and economic policy.

Its success will be judged not only by the election result but also by its ability to govern.

A Generational Shift, But Not a Single Movement

It would be misleading to describe Europe’s demonstrations as a unified political campaign.

Participants have different objectives, national circumstances and ideological positions.

Some demand increased public expenditure, while others concentrate on corruption, political accountability or employment opportunities.

What connects them is a recurring concern about whether established institutions respond adequately to younger citizens.

The political consequences will depend on whether demonstrations produce lasting organisations, influence elections or secure changes in government policy.

Serbia suggests that student mobilisation can translate into substantial political change.

For governments elsewhere in Europe, the question is whether the grievances driving these movements can be addressed through existing political institutions before dissatisfaction generates further unrest.

The Rioters Who Destroy Europe’s Streets Must Be Made to Pay

29 October 2026 at 09:15

There is something profoundly unjust about a society in which a shopkeeper can spend a lifetime building a business, only to see it wrecked in an afternoon by a mob, and then discover that the bill for putting things right falls largely on the taxpayer. The rioters who smashed the windows walk away. The innocent victim is left counting the cost.

This is precisely the injustice France must address. A proposed French law, debated by parliament this week, seeks to make those involved in rioting financially responsible for damage, with penalties potentially reaching €10,000. The legislation has provoked fierce opposition from civil liberties organisations and lawyers, who warn that it could threaten the democratic right to protest. On October 28th, the French Senate approved an expanded version of the bill, sending it on to the National Assembly for further consideration.

Those concerns deserve consideration. But they should not obscure a principle that ought to be uncontroversial: people who deliberately destroy other people’s property must be held accountable for what they do.

Democracy is not a licence for destruction

The right to demonstrate is one of the foundations of a free society. Citizens must be able to march against unpopular governments, demand better wages, protest rising living costs and challenge decisions they believe are unjust. Governments should protect that right, even when the message is uncomfortable.

But peaceful protest and criminal violence are not interchangeable. A legitimate grievance does not excuse arson. Anger about the cost of living does not justify looting a family-owned business. Nor does opposition to government policy grant anyone permission to attack police officers, intimidate residents or vandalise public buildings.

When violence erupts, the people who suffer are often those with the least power to absorb the losses. Independent retailers, restaurant owners, employees and local communities pay a price for disorder they neither organised nor encouraged.

Why should they be expected to bear that burden alone?

The taxpayer should not be the rioter’s insurance policy

France’s recent unrest has illustrated the scale of the problem. Reuters reported that businesses suffered substantial losses from looting and vandalism, while thousands of shops were damaged or forced to close amid the violence.

The consequences extend beyond broken windows. Businesses lose revenue, employees face uncertainty, insurance costs can rise and neighbourhoods acquire a reputation for instability. Public authorities must divert resources to policing and repairs instead of spending them on services citizens actually need.

Ultimately, the public pays repeatedly: first through the destruction itself, then through the cost of restoring order and rebuilding what has been damaged.

A system that makes offenders compensate their victims would help reverse that injustice. Courts should be able to order restitution, impose substantial fines and pursue offenders’ assets where the law permits. Where several people deliberately participate in a proven campaign of destruction, the law should provide effective ways of establishing their respective responsibilities.

A €10,000 ceiling may be inadequate when the damage runs into tens or hundreds of thousands of euros. Compensation should reflect the harm caused, subject to fair procedures and realistic arrangements for payment.

Make the punishment fit the crime

Financial liability alone will not deter everyone. For those who set fires, lead organised looting, inflict serious injuries or repeatedly engage in violent disorder, imprisonment must remain a genuine possibility.

The most serious offenders should face lengthy prison sentences proportionate to their crimes. A person who deliberately endangers lives by setting a building alight should not expect to receive little more than a symbolic penalty. Organisers who coordinate attacks and individuals who assault others should know that the consequences can be severe.

Swift justice matters, too. Cases should be investigated properly, evidence gathered carefully and proceedings concluded without unnecessary delay. Punishment must be certain enough to command respect, not merely spectacular enough to generate headlines.

There is, however, a crucial distinction between being present at a demonstration and participating in criminal violence. No one should be ordered to pay for damage simply because they attended a march or happened to be nearby. Prosecutors must establish the relevant conduct and culpability, and defendants must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence.

That is not softness. It is what separates the rule of law from mob justice.

Protect peaceful protest. Punish violent offenders.

Critics of France’s proposed law, including Amnesty International, argue that provisions imposing liability for damage committed by other members of a gathering risk punishing people for acts they did not personally commit. That is a serious concern that lawmakers should address rather than dismiss.

Legislation must be drafted precisely enough to distinguish genuine participation in organised violence from peaceful assembly. Collective punishment is not a substitute for effective policing, and the financial hardship of an offender’s family should not become a convenient additional penalty.

But the answer to a badly drafted law is better legislation, not resignation to the destruction of streets and businesses.

France and other European democracies need a clear message: protest is a right; violence is a choice. Those who make that choice must accept its consequences.

A society that fails to protect innocent people from deliberate destruction risks losing public confidence in its institutions. And a democracy that allows violent minorities to intimidate communities and impose enormous costs on everyone else risks surrendering its streets to those least entitled to control them.

The principle should be simple. If you smash it, you should pay for it. If you burn it, injure someone or organise the destruction, you should face the full weight of the law.

Freedom demands responsibility. Without it, the right to protest risks becoming an excuse for the destruction of the very society that makes peaceful protest possible.

France Student Protests: 504 Arrested and 48 Police Injured as Violence Erupts in Paris

Main Image: By JJxFile, Jorge Jaramillo, info@jjxfile.com – CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=202096512
❌