Political Crisis in Serbia Through the Lens of Protest: Five Exclusive Interviews – Analysis of Escalation

Serbia’s political crisis is entering a new phase, marked by widespread protests, increasing repression, and growing international scrutiny. Citizens and civil society actors are demanding institutional accountability, particularly in connection with the tragic collapse of public infrastructure and a series of corruption allegations linked to the ruling party. Meanwhile, reactions from the European Union and other international stakeholders remain divided—some calling for concrete action, others limiting their response to public statements of concern.

As media control intensifies and key political developments unfold in the streets, government decisions are increasingly viewed as falling outside the bounds of democratic norms and international human rights conventions. What began as localized unrest has evolved into a broader societal movement with potentially far-reaching political consequences.

To shed light on the complexity of this moment, the editorial team of REUC conducted five exclusive interviews with prominent voices from Serbia’s political, academic, and analytical sectors. Their perspectives offer a critical, objective, and multi-layered view of the ongoing escalation, institutional challenges, and international dynamics shaping Serbia’s current political reality.

Interviews

Journalist: What are the most likely scenarios for the development of the political crisis in Serbia in the coming months?

Dušan Janjić – Founder and President of the Executive Board of Forum for Ethnic Relations:

„One option: The government will continue to incite anger among dissatisfied citizens, especially those participating in peaceful protests. The goal is to provoke an increase in “hooligan incidents,” arson, and brutal beatings, including police torture, in order to halt the growing public trust in students and other actors of civic rebellion. At the same time, there will be intensified propaganda promoting the belief that a strong state reduced to a “monopoly on force” led by Vučić is the only protection for citizens and Serbia. This goal is being pursued through the already initiated “peaceful marches” of government supporters, chants of “Aco Srbine,” ( Aco – nick name for alexander – you are Serbian) and demands for an unlimited-term mandate for Aleksandar Vučić. The reach of this option is short-term. It is essentially a “buying of time” until 2027 and the end of the current presidential term. A possible government reshuffle may occur, including parts of the current opposition under the guise of national unity and saving Serbia.

The problem with this option is that it does not resolve the main issue: the structural destabilization of Serbia and the high risk of escalation into a security crisis stemming from internal conflict.

A second option depends on the response of rebellious citizens to the growing repression. Increased mobilization and internal coordination are expected, including the formation of alliances with political parties. This should result in the presentation of clear political proposals to the public, concentrated around the already articulated student demands, including the Edict, the mantra “Stop the Mafia!” and demands for elections. The short-term reach of this option is the establishment of a new political actor — a nationwide movement with majority public support, preventing the government from continuing its “buying time” strategy and gaining support from international actors for a peaceful transition of power and elections.„

Saša Radulović – President of the political party „Enough is Enough“, former Member of Parliament and Minister of Economy in the Government of the Republic of Serbia:

„The government has made and continues to make catastrophically bad decisions, both for itself and for Serbia. The only culprit for the chaos in the country is the government. Instead of fulfilling the just demands of the students and publishing all construction, legal, and financial (money flow) documentation related to the tragedy in Novi Sad, the government hides and falsifies documents, hides behind an interstate agreement, and tries to protect its ministers and its massive corruption. The only way out of the crisis is republican elections.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović – Director of the International Institute for Middle Eastern and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) – Ljubljana:

„The current situation in Serbia cannot be viewed in “black and white” terms, as it is far more complex. The most important thing is for Serbia to return to a state of normalcy. The most likely development is a continuation of the status quo with occasional concessions from the government, while the opposition will strive to maintain the momentum of the protests. International actors (primarily the EU and the US) will play a key role, and the outcome depends on them. For now, the Serbian government enjoys international support. The streets cannot replace a president or parliament elected through legal elections. The protests began over a canopy that almost no one mentions anymore and have morphed into pure politics.„

Miroslav Aleksić – President of the People’s Movement of Serbia ( Narodni pokret Srbije ) and Member of Parliament:

„It’s difficult to predict, as things are unfolding very quickly. However, what seems certain to me is that this crisis cannot be resolved without elections. People are justifiably dissatisfied and angry, and the government sees that—so they’re becoming more repressive. That can be dangerous, which is why I’ve called on Aleksandar Vučić to stop before someone else suffers because of them.„

Journalist: Is it possible that elections will be called, and what could they bring?

Dusan Lj. Milenkovic – Political consultant:

„Certainly, snap elections are always an option, especially under Aleksandar Vučić’s regime, which has called early parliamentary elections four times already. However, for the first time, it seems that elections could lead to a change in power — which is likely why Vučić is still avoiding them.„

Dušan Janjić: „The government will continue to call regular local elections. It will keep “offering” early parliamentary elections, with the intention of postponing them to the following year. There is little chance it will find allies for this among the current political opposition or the international community. It is also unlikely that they will be held this year.

It is evident that the government refuses to organize early presidential and local elections, which are usually held simultaneously. The reason is clear: under current conditions, the ruling coalition would suffer a convincing defeat.

In reality, without establishing conditions for a political agreement between the government, opposition, and rebellious citizens regarding the terms of the elections, elections are not possible.„

Saša Radulović: „I expect the government to call elections by the end of this year. The pre-election campaign has already begun: they’ve announced an early increase in the minimum wage and pensions, they’ll once again fight against excessive trade margins, and all other actions from their usual pre-election arsenal. The government has a huge problem with the protests. Everyone who might cooperate with the government has withdrawn and is waiting. The economy is in decline. The government could even lose EXPO, which is probably their biggest corruption project so far, after Belgrade Waterfront, which is still ongoing, along with corruption in all infrastructure projects.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović: „It is possible, although calling elections usually depends on several factors: political pressure, internal stability of the current government, international context, and the government’s assessment of whether elections could strengthen its legitimacy. Timing is crucial—governments typically call elections when they believe they can win the most, while the opposition hopes for elections when the government shows weakness.

At this moment, according to available research, the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) would win again. Interestingly, student protests have further marginalized the opposition. It may be pragmatic for Vučić to call early elections, but he is not compelled to do so. Currently, there are no more than ten thousand aggressive demonstrators in the streets, and whether a country of 6–7 million should capitulate to them would send a poor signal to other countries in the region. No one is discussing what would happen if early elections are held and the opposition loses again. That would be the most dangerous scenario and could lead to a potential civil conflict—especially in Vojvodina, where a front is already forming: on one side are SNS, the Hungarian minority, and refugees from Krajina; on the other side are old autonomists, Croats, and parts of other minorities.„

Miroslav Aleksić: „Elections will definitely be called and held—it’s just a matter of when exactly. Regardless, we are preparing so we’re ready when they are announced. Since the current government has shown no willingness to resolve the crisis or meet the legitimate demands of students and citizens, the only solution right now is early parliamentary elections. I said this back in April when it became clear. Vučić’s hesitation to call elections, even though he previously offered them himself, only shows how much of a coward he is and worsens the existing crisis in Serbia.„

Journalists: How do you see the reaction of institutions to student protests and demands for accountability?

Dušan Lj. Milenković: „If you’re asking about the past month, there’s been a clear increase in repression and violence, which wasn’t triggered by any escalation from the protesters. It seems more like a calculated decision by the regime. What’s unclear is the goal of such a move — if they thought it would intimidate citizens, I think they’re misunderstanding the historical moment.„

Dušan Janjić: „The government is aware that fulfilling student demands means its departure. That is why it is doing everything in its power to delay meeting the demands and simultaneously marginalize the influence of the students.„

Saša Radulović: „Serbia clearly no longer has institutions. Every government has undermined them so far and worked to bring them under party control—both the red government of the 1990s and the yellow one after October 5th—but this black government has gone the furthest. Completely incompetent yet obedient people, people without life or work experience, have been placed in the most responsible positions in the country.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović: „Institutional reactions in Serbia fluctuate between occasional concessions and increasingly visible violence in the streets. The government claims it has met the demands, but it could do much more in terms of substantive reforms and/or investigations. Unfortunately, dialogue is minimal, and violence is escalating—which further fuels tensions.

Students, professors, and civil society are demanding transparency, justice, and accountability—and institutional inertia must evolve into a vigorous response that leads to a thorough transformation of the state and society.„

Miroslav Aleksić: „I’d say that reaction has been absent since November 1st, and when there was any response, it was shameful and directed against citizens who have the right to peaceful assembly and to voice their demands. Let me remind you that some activists and members of opposition parties are still in custody simply for participating in protests. Criminalized police units, as well as paramilitary and parapolice formations, are detaining, beating, and kidnapping students and citizens in the streets.

Students from the Faculty of Political Sciences and young members of the People’s Movement of Serbia, Nikolina and Stevan, were harassed and threatened in the garage of the Serbian Government building. We will file criminal charges regarding this, so we’ll see whether institutions respond appropriately. And after all these months, no one has been held accountable for the collapse of the canopy and the death of 16 people, including children. That says enough about the state of our institutions.„

Journalist: How do you comment on claims that certain NGOs, with EU support, are trying to destabilize the government in Serbia?

Dušan Lj. Milenković: „It’s a senseless repetition of the same script, which shows how little creativity the regime has.„

Dušan Janjić: „This is partly an expression of political trauma and frustration among leading figures in the current government stemming from October 5, 2000, and the civil society organizations active at that time. At the same time, it serves as an excuse for claims of a “coloured revolution” and a “conspiracy to remove Vučić from power.„

Saša Radulović: „The government has full support from the EU. For 12 years, the government has pursued the “EU has no alternative” policy. Within the EU, the only country practically interested in the Balkans is Germany, and EU policy is essentially Germany’s policy in the Balkans. The government has been obedient to the EU for 12 years. No one else would be able to do for EU interests what this government has done: destroy Serbia’s position in Kosovo and Metohija, give everything and receive nothing, give away lithium, adopt and continue to adopt harmful laws, watch silently as the tragicomic actions of German citizen Schmidt cause chaos in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, and buy Rafale jets for nearly 3 billion euros. The idea that the EU would trade a stable government for uncertain students makes no sense.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović: „Such claims usually arise in politically tense situations. Events in Serbia and the region often involve foreign influence, which is nothing new. Serbia is a battleground for foreign intelligence agencies. That’s no secret. Some NGOs are funded from abroad, and Serbia is no exception. Everything in Serbia has taken on a political dimension—including the NGO sector. Claims that NGOs are destabilizing the government with EU support reflect more on the internal political discourse and the government’s strategy to shield itself from criticism than on any real intent or capacity of the NGO sector to cause destabilization. Their actual power is limited, but their voice in public can help raise awareness of issues—which every government is reluctant to accept. Experiences from other countries have shown that in “colour revolutions,” funding often flows through NGOs.„

Miroslav Aleksić: „That’s nothing new. The current government has been trying for years to blame others for all its failures, poor decisions, corruption, and crime. They don’t realize that they themselves are destabilizing and destroying Serbia—or worse, they do realize it but don’t care. During the 2023 “Serbia Against Violence” protests, Aleksandar Vučić made claims that the protests were being funded from Germany, and this year he was drawing on a whiteboard about some supposed coloured revolution. If there really is such a serious threat to the state, why haven’t the institutions done anything about it? Where is the investigation, where is the evidence? What kind of country is it where the president publicly claims that someone from abroad is working against Serbia, and then it all ends with tabloid reports from pro-government media? It’s clear that this served no other purpose.„

Journalist: Which organizations are most active in this context, and is their funding transparent?

Dušan Lj. Milenković: „Aside from the student movement, all other actors are dwarfs in this process, so their funding isn’t really relevant. Meanwhile, the students publicly and transparently disclose all their funding options and receive by far the most support from citizens.„

Dušan Janjić: „There are active NGOs on the side of rebellious citizens, especially alongside the student movement. However, in terms of number and budget size, the government-organized NGOs (GONGOs) are more numerous and stronger, serving as extensions of the government.„

Saša Radulović: „Despite constant attempts by various manifestos, awakenings, and dawns to take over the protests, the students have successfully defended themselves so far.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović: „The most frequently mentioned organizations in this context are those focused on the rule of law, media freedom, and anti-corruption—areas in which the EU regularly criticizes the Serbian government in its reports. Commonly cited organizations include: CRTA, BIRN Serbia, Transparency Serbia, YUCOM, Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, Humanitarian Law Center, Independent Journalists’ Associations (NUNS, NDNV), and others. Transparency in funding can always be questioned. State institutions and NGOs should compete in transparency regarding spending. At the same time, there is too little discussion about non-transparent money flows. We see a ping-pong dynamic, with the government shifting blame to the NGO sector, which retaliates just as fiercely.

A flaw in the NGO law, passed by the DOS government, allows NGOs that cease operations before the end of the calendar year to avoid submitting reports to the state—opening the door for satellite NGOs and raising questions about transparency. This must be corrected through new legal solutions.„

Miroslav Aleksić: „This is a question for the relevant institutions, not for me. The problem here is that trust in institutional work is so low—because justice is applied selectively—that no one believes anything will be investigated in accordance with the law.„

Journalist: Could the current political instability affect President Vučić’s planned visit to China in September?

Dušan Janjić: „This visit is more necessary for Vučić than for China. A postponement of the visit could only occur by decision of China. That, however, is unlikely.„

Saša Radulović: „No. This government is deeply invested in relations with China. Every infrastructure project is carried out through an interstate agreement. Every kilometer of road costs us three times more than it should. The money is clearly being settled outside the country.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović: „Political instability in Serbia can certainly influence international activities. However, current instability does not automatically threaten the visit—on the contrary, Vučić could use it to demonstrate stability and international support. Only in the case of serious escalation at home would the visit be postponed or reformatted, which is unlikely.„

Miroslav Aleksić: „I believe that, as before, Vučić will use this visit—alongside additional borrowing—to present himself as a great statesman and skilled diplomat who maintains good relations with all major powers. So I assume the visit will go ahead.„

Journalist: Would a possible postponement or cancellation of the visit be politically damaging for Vučić domestically?

Dušan Lj. Milenković: „Any political event that reveals a new vulnerability is a major blow to autocrats like him — similar to his urgent unexpected return from the U.S. recently. That’s an argument in favor of expecting Vučić to do everything he can to ensure the visit happens.„

Dušan Janjić: „Undoubtedly. Just like Vučić’s fiasco in the U.S., a possible postponement of this visit would be damaging to Vučić’s already shaken self-confidence and the public’s trust in him.„

Saša Radulović: „Not particularly. But he would lose a pre-election campaign video.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović: „Postponing or canceling the visit to China would not be favorable, as there is a long queue for a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Serbia should seize this opportunity, especially since the protests have already distanced Serbia further from the EU. China, alongside the EU, is Serbia’s largest economic partner, and this partnership makes Serbia more independent than others. Serbia will need this partnership, as the EU currently has no intention of advancing Serbia’s membership.„

Miroslav Aleksić: „I believe the average person in Serbia currently faces much bigger problems in daily life, and whether Vučić goes to Beijing or not doesn’t make much difference to them. Except that, unfortunately, we’ll probably all end up even more in debt.„

Journalist: How would the international community interpret Vučić’s decision to travel during domestic unrest?

Dušan Lj. Milenković: „I think that, in this historical moment, the reaction of the international community to his trip to China is the least of his concerns.„

Dušan Janjić: „Each international actor builds and will continue to build its stance on that decision from the perspective of Vučić’s integrity and credibility in fulfilling his commitments.„

Saša Radulović: „The term “international community” has so far referred to the collective West. The collective West no longer exists. It was dismantled by the United States, which has gone its own way. Three things about U.S. policy are important for us in Serbia and our entire region:

1. The U.S. no longer needs the EU, and its goal is to dismantle the EU and return to the pre-EU state: many separate states in Western Europe.
2. The U.S. needs a strategic agreement with Russia.
3. The main opponent of the U.S. is China. China defeated them in the game of global corporate capitalism, and now they must change the game. That’s why the first two points exist.

Serbia must abandon the “EU has no alternative” policy as soon as possible and seek its place in a strategic agreement between the U.S. and Russia. That is very difficult if you’ve become deeply entangled with China.„

Prof. dr Zijad Bećirović: „The international community interprets Vučić’s decision to travel to China in the current situation in various ways. The visit has already been announced as major, important, and successful (high-level meetings, contracts, Chinese support). The international community may see it as Vučić’s attempt to further legitimize himself externally and balance internal tensions. Realistically, the international community is focused on more pressing global issues. Beijing will likely interpret the visit as a sign that Vučić, despite internal tensions, prioritizes relations with China. For them, it would be proof of his loyalty and reliability. China is also a major investor in EU countries—for example, it is the largest investor in Hungary—so Serbia should not be ashamed of its partnership, even brotherly ties, with China. Just look at how much importance U.S. President Donald Trump placed on relations with China.„

Miroslav Aleksić: „The international community has had plenty of opportunities to react, and yet it hasn’t—so I don’t believe this time will be any different. How they interpret it privately, I truly don’t know and wouldn’t dare to guess. In any case, we will continue to inform the international community about everything happening in Serbia, because we believe it’s important that they have all the facts and know the real situation—not just what the current government presents as truth. Still, I have no illusions that foreigners will help us or fight our battles, but at the very least they shouldn’t participate in the illusion that Serbia is a democracy and on the path to the EU.„

Journalist: Mr. Aleksić, has the EU responded to your open letter about human rights violations in Serbia, and how?

Miroslav Aleksić: „I sent that letter to diplomatic representatives of the international community here in Serbia, as well as to EU officials. The main focus of the letter was on what students and citizens protesting in Serbia are going through in their fight for a better country—especially what Stevan and Nikolina endured, with Nikolina being threatened with rape by Marko Kričak, commander of the Unit for the Protection of Certain Persons and Facilities. Some responses to the letter have arrived, but without any significant reaction. Still, since the Republic of Serbia is a candidate for EU membership, I believe it is the EU’s responsibility to ensure the safety of these young people and all other citizens of Serbia, and not to remain silent in the face of such obvious and widespread human rights violations.„