Massive student-led pro-democracy protests have been ongoing for three months in Serbia, and show no signs of waning. Quite the contrary, recently some 5,000 university professors and academic staff, the Serbian Bar Association, actors guild, and hundreds of schools throughout the country went on strike in support of the ongoing student protests. A critical mass seems to be growing and gaining intensity as huge protests are now taking place daily even in smaller Serbian towns. At the same time, the size of a mass rally held at Belgrade’s Slavija square on December 22 surpassed the October 5 2000 protest which led to the ousting of Slobodan Milošević.
Answers came from the authorities in various forms: smear campaigns against students in pro-government tabloids who labeled them foreign agents and published their personal data; misuse of intelligence service agents who summoned individual students and their parents for a ‘friendly conversation’; a series of physical attacks against protesters culminating with an attempted murder when a man drove his car into a crowd during a silent tribute in Belgrade. In such circumstances, calls for a country-wide general strike are becoming louder. Serbia seems to be at a critical junction. Yet, its citizens seem to be left on their own, as the international community, most notably the EU, keeps turning a blind eye to their cries for democracy.
What the protests are all about
The protests demand official accountability for the death of 15 people in an infrastructure collapse in Novi Sad, following after a much publicized reconstruction of the train station. They also demand that all criminal proceedings against individuals arrested during the past months’ rallies be suspended.
The train station tragedy was a political watershed moment in Serbia. One which publicly exposed state capture by spelling out government corruption through neglect of public procurement procedures in expensive infrastructure projects and favoring clientelist companies who are awarded lucrative business projects. The tragedy displayed a lack of structural integrity of independent state institutions, which are filled out from the ranks of party proxies. Attempts of damage control via media cover-up of the tragedy highlight the problem of captured media in the country. Finally, delays in criminal proceedings against politicians involved in the tragedy and a lack of political accountability have led to accusations of negligence, abuse of power, political interference and corruption against the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). In other words, the Novi Sad tragedy became a flash point for expressions of dissatisfaction with the Serbian government as a whole.
EU’s answer to Serbia protests
Throughout the past three months, the EU remained rather silent on the events in Serbia. On January 20, Gert Jan Koopman, director-general of the European Commission's Directorate-General Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations, met with Serbian officials and discussed EU integrations and the current political situation in Serbia. In talks with representatives of the ruling parliament majority, Koopman said that Serbia had made significant progress in reform processes in the previous period and pointed out the necessity of cooperation between all political actors in the parliament to make headway on the path to EU Integration. In a post on X he spoke about renewed EU enlargement momentum and the steady progress made by Serbia. One day later, EU’s spokesperson Guillaume Mercier voiced his concern about the reported attacks against protestors, calling for all key actors to engage constructively and in cross-party political dialogue.
Neither of the two EU officials made any comments regarding the student protest demands. Moreover, not only did both of them fail to offer support to the protests and their demands, this also demonstrated the EU’s lack of understanding of the reality on the ground.
When praising reformist dynamics in Serbia, the EU fails to acknowledge its own 2018 findings. These indicated that Serbia, among other Western Balkan countries, shows clear elements of state capture, including links with organized crime and corruption at all levels of government and administration, as well as a strong entanglement of public and private interests. Secondly, when calling for a cross-party dialogue, the EU ignores the latest Freedom House Report which cities no realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections. Hence, the Serbian opposition plays a marginal role in the ongoing protests and will continue to do so unless it enters into a broad and firm anti-government coalition. Thirdly, the EU ignores the constant erosion of media freedom in Serbia, characterized by political pressure, threats and even physical attacks against journalists, as clearly stated in the European Parliament’s declaration on Serbia.
In other words, the EU continues with its well-established practice of promoting stabilitocracy in Serbia, while failing to recognize the country’s regime for what it actually is – an autocratic and corrupt political system unfit to meet EU conditions with regard to respect and promotion of democracy, rule of law and human rights. It is precisely these fundamental EU values that define the collective identity of the entire organization. Moreover, the Union is legally obliged to promote them in its external relations (Articles 21, 3(5) and 8 TEU).
What the EU should do
The EU’s stabilitocratic approach to the region over the past decade failed to deliver an expected democratic conversion. Instead, it has led to the rise of a new generation of autocrats, epitomized by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić. Unlike his authoritarian predecessors, he has learned to be less antagonistic in relations to the West, but his unconstitutional presidentialism allows him even greater control over electoral processes, state institutions and the media. Thus, preventing his state capture requires a new strategy which calls for concerted domestic and international efforts.
A first step would surely be bringing the SNS’ undemocratic practices to light of a domestic audience, but also to gradually convince the EU and its key member states that the government is no longer a credible partner, but a threat for fundamental EU values. In light of the large-scale problems with regard to the EU fundamentals in Serbia which had been well evidenced at least since 2018, and in particular the systemic problems which were revealed or confirmed in connection to the Novi Sad tragedy, the European Commission must recruite a group of independent senior rule of law experts to carry out a rapid analysis of the situation and provide binding recommendations to address these issues. The EU is able and competent to do so, in fact it has already done so in 2015 when appointing the so-called Priebe Group to produce recommendations to facilitate the urgent reform priorities as a short-term response to the political crisis in North Macedonia.
The main areas which should be in focus of the expert group include corruption, judiciary and prosecution, external oversight by independent bodies, elections and the media. The EU must be vocal when it comes to the implementation of urgent reform priorities to address the systemic weaknesses of the Serbian political system. It should also aim to establish accountability and level the playing field before a possible new snap elections. This means supporting the mandate of a non-partisan government for a limited period of time in order to implement EU’s urgent reform priorities.
Using its own lingo: the EU must increase its level of concern, so as to allow for a combination of a water-shed revelation, external pressure through a Priebe-like report, EU mediation, large scale social movements and protests which eventually can allow for a change of government in Serbia. It is the eleventh hour for the EU to step up and fulfil its self-proclaimed task of a democracy and rule of law promoter. It must clearly and univocally support the student protests in Serbia and stop having stabilitocratic consideration for the country’s authoritarian regime. The EU should initiate a dialogue with young Serbian democratically oriented citizens. In case it fails to do so, it could find itself without a relevant interlocutor in the country in the near future.