Protests in Serbia: After Vučić, Vučić again

Student demonstrations in Serbia began as a protest demanding justice for those responsible for the incident at the Novi Sad train station. The student movement led to a mobilization supported by a very large number of Serbian citizens. The culmination was the demonstration on March 15 in Belgrade, probably the largest in the last 25 years, gathering from 300,000 (according to conservative estimates) to 500,000 (according to the participants themselves).

The months-long protests have caused perhaps the most serious crisis since Vučić’s party came to power in 2012. The government has tried to stop some of the participants from coming to Belgrade from the country, including by stopping trains to the capital.

Despite the expectation of most observers for violence, including bloodshed, the demonstrations have so far been generally peaceful and there has been no violence. This shows both a high level of civic consciousness at the grassroots level and the tactical wisdom of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who ordered the police to exercise complete restraint, even though none of the rallies or demonstrations had been announced in advance, as required by law. In any case, no police force in Serbia is capable of dispersing half a million protestors. Any police violence would have a powerful backlash.

The alleged use of a sound gun by the police during the 15-minute silence in memory of the victims of the Novi Sad train station protest on March 15, which caused panic, is based only on rumors. Suspicion grew after the authorities initially denied having such a weapon, but it later turned out that this was not the case and that a similar weapon was present at the protest in Belgrade. However, the authorities deny that it was used, and specialists from the Russian special services arrived in Belgrade to conduct a competent inspection.

There is anger and distrust in the government among Serbian citizens. Protests continue to this day in various places in the country. Violence was also shown at a protest in Niš in recent days.

The reasons for the disproportionate momentum of student protests following the incident in Novi Sad are complex. The current protests are comparable only to the popular wave that threw Slobodan Milošević out of power 25 years ago. The colossal resonance of the 15 victims in Novi Sad is based on complex social mechanics.

In the first stage of the demonstrations, when the number of protesters was growing like a snowball, there was a visible role of foreign NGOs, and the government responded with pressure and searches of civil society organizations, including the expulsion of foreign NGO representatives from Serbia. But the protests took on the character of an uprising of national-patriotic Serbian youth, and numerous foreign NGOs and pro-Western opposition parties were generally excluded from the protests. Years ago, Aleksandar Vučić had concluded an unspoken pact with foreign NGOs – they would operate freely on the territory of the country, but would not interfere in internal affairs. Serbia remained a paradise for foreign NGOs after Vučić suspended the law on foreign agents in 2024. American NGOs excluded themselves from Serbia after Trump came to power, and European ones also have neither a defining nor guiding role in the protests.

Indeed, the student protests do not have prominent leaders and are organized mainly through social networks. The initiators remain anonymous and cannot be politically compromised. The heads of higher education institutions, many of whom maintain close ties with foreign NGO structures, expressed solidarity with the students. In the end, the protests were supported by all segments of the population.

The student protests are aimed not so much at the resignation of President A. Vučić as at reforming or abolishing the political system itself. The students are rightly convinced that even if Vučić resigns now, the next parliamentary and presidential elections will still be won by the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SPS). Vučić, although not formally the party chairman, is the all-powerful national leader of the SPS, which has huge structures in Serbia, where every 9th citizen is a member of the SPS. So the genius of tactical maneuvers A. Vučić cannot be removed from power, unlike other Balkan leaders like Boyko Borisov or Milo Đukanović, who never leave power but remain behind-the-scenes conductors. Vučić’s only strategy is to stay in power, and his tactical genius lies in the fact that he manages to sit in all the chairs available to him. But Vučić’s multi-vector nature and his desire to be friends with everyone inevitably create many enemies for him.

Although Serbia is a parliamentary republic, the president has traditionally usurped enormous powers against the constitution. That is why the students are demanding a change in the constitution so that Serbia would in fact be a parliamentary republic. But any talk of changing the constitution will give Vučić another reprieve.

Vučić called on the students to engage in dialogue, but his proposal was rejected because, according to the students, the country’s president is not the right figure to engage in negotiations with them and who has the authority to respond to their demands.

In the current tense situation, a solution is being sought through negotiations, but this will be very difficult. The students continue to distance themselves from the opposition and NGOs, and it is not yet clear how any negotiations will be conducted.

The high level of antagonism also affected the Serbian parliament in early March, when an opposition protest led to clashes and violence.

The parliament accepted the government’s resignation and began the 30-day period during which a new government should be formed, otherwise new elections should be held between 45 and 60 days after the expiration of the 30-day period. The opposition called for the formation of an expert and transitional government to prepare for new elections. For now, the SPS does not agree with such a decision. More opposition boycotts of the work of the parliament can be expected.

Vučić is also disliked by Serbian patriots, who accuse him of passivity on Kosovo and of continuing the policy of renouncing all levers of influence in Kosovo, both in the Serbian enclaves and in the northern part of the region, densely populated by Serbs.

Vučić’s multi-vector approach in the long term does not bode well for favorable development (similar to the non-alignment of the former Yugoslavia or the equidistance of Armenia). Sooner or later, the Serbian president will have to make up his mind. Until then, he will be looking for new tactics in pursuing the hopeless strategy of staying in power at all costs. Some experts are already predicting that he may redirect some of the protesting youth to Republika Srpska to defend its independence. This would correspond to the nationalist, patriotic, Orthodox and anti-Western sentiments of the main mass of protesters.

Demonstrations in Turkish cities with an unprecedented number of participants, which will divert attention to Turkey, may also prove to be in Vučić’s favor. The Serbian president will also gain new confidence from the fact that, even after a 2 million-strong demonstration in Istanbul, Erogan remains unshaken.